[2006] KEHC 628 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 628 (KLR)

The court held that once it had stayed the proceedings and referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act, its jurisdiction to entertain the same dispute was ousted unless properly re-invoked under the Arbitration Act, specifically Section 7 for interim measures. The applicants failed to invoke the correct statutory provisions and instead relied on the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, which were inapplicable in the circumstances. Furthermore, the prayers sought in the Chamber Summons were inconsistent with those in the main suit, violating the requirement that interlocutory relief must relate to the substantive relief sought. The court found the application...

Citation
[2006] KEHC 628 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: HON.M.M. Galgalo; Applicant: Jael Mbogo; Applicant: Capt. Charles Masinde; Applicant: Peter Orinda; Defendant: Hon. Musikari Kombo; Defendant: Hon. John K. Munyes
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 December 2006
Case Number
Civil Case 382 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Chamber Summons
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; chamber summons dismissed with costs to respondents
Legal Topics
Arbitration Referral, Injunctive Relief, Jurisdiction of High Court, Party Constitution Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Referral Injunctive Relief Jurisdiction of High Court Party Constitution Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HON.M.M. Galgalo

Applicant

Jael Mbogo

Applicant

Capt. Charles Masinde

Applicant

Peter Orinda

Applicant

Hon. Musikari Kombo

Defendant

Hon. John K. Munyes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Chamber Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in a matter already stayed and referred to arbitration under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act.
  2. 2 Whether the prayers sought in the Chamber Summons are inconsistent with those in the main suit and thus invalid.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants can invoke the Civil Procedure Act and Rules in a matter governed by the Arbitration Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once it had stayed the proceedings and referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act, its jurisdiction to entertain the same dispute was ousted unless properly re-invoked under the Arbitration Act, specifically Section 7 for interim measures. The applicants failed to invoke the correct statutory provisions and instead relied on the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, which were inapplicable in the circumstances. Furthermore, the prayers sought in the Chamber Summons were inconsistent with those in the main suit, violating the requirement that interlocutory relief must relate to the substantive relief sought. The court found the application...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; chamber summons dismissed with costs to respondents

Orders

  • The Chamber Summons dated 5th December, 2006 is dismissed with costs to the Defendant/Respondents.
  • A stern warning is issued to the Applicants to desist from further disobeying court orders.