[2004] KEHC 351 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 351 (KLR)

The court found that the application to set aside the arbitral award was fatally defective because the arbitrator, whose decision was being challenged, had not been served with the application as required by Order 45 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that only the arbitrator could adequately respond to the allegations of misconduct, and that the failure to serve the arbitrator deprived them of the opportunity to be heard. As such, the application was improperly before the court and could not be entertained. The court therefore struck out the application without considering its merits, with each party to bear its own costs.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 351 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mbu Munyuu; Applicant: Muema Muinde; Respondent: Mwangangi Ngolania
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 April 2004
Case Number
? 23 of 1995
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
application struck out
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Set Aside, Service of Process, Misconduct of Arbitrators
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award Set Aside Service of Process Misconduct of Arbitrators

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbu Munyuu

Applicant

Muema Muinde

Applicant

Mwangangi Ngolania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to set aside the arbitral award is properly before the court in the absence of service on the arbitrator.
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve the arbitrator renders the application fatally defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application to set aside the arbitral award was fatally defective because the arbitrator, whose decision was being challenged, had not been served with the application as required by Order 45 Rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that only the arbitrator could adequately respond to the allegations of misconduct, and that the failure to serve the arbitrator deprived them of the opportunity to be heard. As such, the application was improperly before the court and could not be entertained. The court therefore struck out the application without considering its merits, with each party to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application dated 5.2.1999 is struck out.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.