[2015] KEHC 5243 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5243 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had complied with the requirements of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act by providing a certified copy of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement. The respondent's argument that the certification was improper was rejected, as the Arbitration Act does not specify who must certify the documents, and the Evidence Act provisions cited by the respondent were inapplicable. The court further held that the respondent failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds under Section 37 for refusing recognition or enforcement of the award. The alleged lack of notification by the arbitrator was not a strict requirement under the consent order, and the...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5243 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kay Construction Co. Ltd.; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
17 April 2015
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case 39 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Enforcement, Recognition of Awards, Contractual Disputes, Grounds for Refusal, Arbitration Procedure
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitral Award Enforcement Recognition of Awards Contractual Disputes Grounds for Refusal Arbitration Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kay Construction Co. Ltd.

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award dated 22nd February 2011 can be recognised and enforced as a judgment of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the requirements for enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's right to challenge the award was abridged due to alleged lack of notification by the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had complied with the requirements of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act by providing a certified copy of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement. The respondent's argument that the certification was improper was rejected, as the Arbitration Act does not specify who must certify the documents, and the Evidence Act provisions cited by the respondent were inapplicable. The court further held that the respondent failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds under Section 37 for refusing recognition or enforcement of the award. The alleged lack of notification by the arbitrator was not a strict requirement under the consent order, and the...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant's Chamber Summons dated 13th October 2014 is allowed as prayed.
  • The arbitral award dated 22nd February 2011 is recognised and enforced as a judgment of the court.