[2015] KEHC 5279 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5279 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent's application to set aside the arbitral award had already been dismissed, and that the award was not inconsistent with the Constitution or any law, nor contrary to justice or morality. The arbitrator acted within the contractual parameters set by the parties. The respondent failed to prove any of the statutory grounds under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that would justify refusal of recognition or enforcement. The absence of a certified copy of the award was not prejudicial, as the award was duly signed and not disputed as to authenticity. The pending applications in the Court of Appeal did not constitute a valid basis for refusing enforcement....

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5279 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Njuca Consolidated Co. Ltd; Respondent: Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 379 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application allowed with costs to the applicant.
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Enforcement, Recognition of Awards, Grounds for Refusal, Public Policy Exception
Source Language
English
Alternative Dispute Resolution Commercial and Corporate Arbitral Award Enforcement Recognition of Awards Grounds for Refusal Public Policy Exception

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Njuca Consolidated Co. Ltd

Applicant

Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended final arbitral award should be recognised and adopted as a judgment of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to enforce the arbitral award as a decree of the court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has established any grounds under section 37 of the Arbitration Act to refuse recognition or enforcement of the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's application to set aside the arbitral award had already been dismissed, and that the award was not inconsistent with the Constitution or any law, nor contrary to justice or morality. The arbitrator acted within the contractual parameters set by the parties. The respondent failed to prove any of the statutory grounds under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that would justify refusal of recognition or enforcement. The absence of a certified copy of the award was not prejudicial, as the award was duly signed and not disputed as to authenticity. The pending applications in the Court of Appeal did not constitute a valid basis for refusing enforcement....

Court Disposition

Application allowed with costs to the applicant.

Orders

  • The amended final arbitral award dated 23rd October 2012 is recognised and adopted as a judgment of the court.
  • Leave is granted to the applicant to enforce the award as a decree of the court.