[2013] KEHC 1978 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 1978 (KLR)

The court held that the preliminary objection lacked merit because the applicant had brought its application within the confines of section 35 of the Arbitration Act, which allows recourse to the High Court to set aside an arbitral award on grounds including conflict with public policy. The court found that it would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 1978 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: National Agricultural Export Development Board; Respondent: Cargill Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 October 2013
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 390 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
GO Shikwe
Legal Topics
Arbitration Awards, Setting Aside Awards, Public Policy Exception, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
english
Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Arbitration Awards Setting Aside Awards Public Policy Exception Jurisdiction of High Court

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Agricultural Export Development Board

Applicant

Cargill Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside a ruling of an arbitrator as opposed to an arbitral award.
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside the arbitral award falls within the confines of section 35 of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral award is contrary to the public policy of Kenya under section 35(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the preliminary objection lacked merit because the applicant had brought its application within the confines of section 35 of the Arbitration Act, which allows recourse to the High Court to set aside an arbitral award on grounds including conflict with public policy. The court found that it would be improper to summarily dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, as it was for the judge hearing the main application to determine whether there was an award and whether it conflicted with public policy. The court emphasized that public policy is a germane issue and that the applicant should not be shut out from arguing its application. The preliminary objection was...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the applicant.