[2001] KEHC 827 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 827 (KLR)

The High Court held that there is no jurisdiction to review orders or decisions made pursuant to a reference under section 17(6) of the Arbitration Act. The court found that neither the Arbitration Act nor the Arbitration Rules expressly or impliedly confer such a right of review. Rule 11 of the Arbitration Rules does not create substantive rights but merely allows for the application of the Civil Procedure Rules in a procedural sense, and only to proceedings expressly contemplated by the Rules. The court further held that to interpret rule 11 as conferring a right of review would be inconsistent with the express provisions of the Arbitration Act, particularly sections 10 and 17(7), which...

Citation
[2001] KEHC 827 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kamconsult Ltd; Respondent: Telkom Kenya Ltd; Respondent: Postal Corporation of Kenya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 December 2001
Case Number
Civil Suit 262 & 267 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Review and Stay
Outcome
application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Arbitration Jurisdiction, Review of Arbitral Orders, Court Intervention in Arbitration, Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Jurisdiction Review of Arbitral Orders Court Intervention in Arbitration Applicability of Civil Procedure Rules

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamconsult Ltd

Applicant

Telkom Kenya Ltd

Respondent

Postal Corporation of Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Review and Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review orders made under section 17(6) of the Arbitration Act.
  2. 2 Whether rule 11 of the Arbitration Rules, 1997, imports a right of review for decisions made under section 17(6) of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Civil Procedure Rules can be invoked to review arbitral decisions where the Arbitration Act is silent.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that there is no jurisdiction to review orders or decisions made pursuant to a reference under section 17(6) of the Arbitration Act. The court found that neither the Arbitration Act nor the Arbitration Rules expressly or impliedly confer such a right of review. Rule 11 of the Arbitration Rules does not create substantive rights but merely allows for the application of the Civil Procedure Rules in a procedural sense, and only to proceedings expressly contemplated by the Rules. The court further held that to interpret rule 11 as conferring a right of review would be inconsistent with the express provisions of the Arbitration Act, particularly sections 10 and 17(7), which...

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The applicant's motion on notice dated 2nd October, 2001 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.