[2022] KEHC 1734 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 1734 (KLR)

The court found that the existence of an arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding, even if its operability is disputed, does not oust the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief. The court's mandate under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act is limited to granting temporary measures to preserve the status quo pending arbitration. The question of whether the arbitration clause is inoperative or the MOU is void is a substantive issue for determination at the main hearing or by the arbitral tribunal. The failure to review the agreement after five years does not, in itself, deprive the court of jurisdiction or render the arbitration clause inoperative for the purposes of interim...

Citation
[2022] KEHC 1734 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kool Communications Ltd; Respondent: Community Broadcasting Services
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Case Number
Civil Suit 18 & 19 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Outcome
Interim order granted; status quo to be maintained pending arbitration.
Judges
SN Riechi
Legal Topics
Memorandum of Understanding, Arbitration Clauses, Temporary Injunctions, Broadcasting Licences, Contractual Termination, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Telecoms and Media Alternative Dispute Resolution Memorandum of Understanding Arbitration Clauses Temporary Injunctions Broadcasting Licences Contractual Termination +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kool Communications Ltd

Applicant

Community Broadcasting Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the memorandum of understanding dated 16th November 2005 is valid or not.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine the matter conclusively in light of clause 1.7 of the memorandum of understanding.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim injunctive relief pending arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the existence of an arbitration clause in the memorandum of understanding, even if its operability is disputed, does not oust the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief. The court's mandate under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act is limited to granting temporary measures to preserve the status quo pending arbitration. The question of whether the arbitration clause is inoperative or the MOU is void is a substantive issue for determination at the main hearing or by the arbitral tribunal. The failure to review the agreement after five years does not, in itself, deprive the court of jurisdiction or render the arbitration clause inoperative for the purposes of interim...

Court Disposition

Interim order granted; status quo to be maintained pending arbitration.

Orders

  • An order of status quo is to be maintained pending referral of the matter to arbitration.
  • The matter is to be referred to arbitration to be concluded within 60 days from the date of the ruling.