[2021] KEHC 5836 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 5836 (KLR)

The court found that while there is an arbitration clause between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, there is no dispute to refer to arbitration because the 1st defendant has expressly admitted liability for the claimed sum in both correspondence and pleadings. The 2nd defendant is not privy to the subcontract and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 5836 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Patronics Services Ltd; Defendant: Epco Builders Ltd; Defendant: Proctor & Allan (E.A) Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 June 2021
Case Number
Civil Case 227 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs
Judges
MW Muigai
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause, Jurisdiction, Admission of Debt, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Arbitration Clause Jurisdiction Admission of Debt Stay of Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patronics Services Ltd

Plaintiff

Epco Builders Ltd

Defendant

Proctor & Allan (E.A) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of the arbitration clause in the subcontract between the plaintiff and 1st defendant.
  2. 2 Whether there exists a dispute between the plaintiff and 1st defendant that should be referred to arbitration.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection by the 2nd defendant is valid given the absence of a contract with the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there is an arbitration clause between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, there is no dispute to refer to arbitration because the 1st defendant has expressly admitted liability for the claimed sum in both correspondence and pleadings. The 2nd defendant is not privy to the subcontract and thus not bound by its arbitration clause. The ongoing arbitration between the 1st and 2nd defendants does not affect the plaintiff, who is not a party to that contract or those proceedings. The preliminary objection by the 2nd defendant, based on lack of jurisdiction due to the arbitration clause, is therefore without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant remains...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The preliminary objection by the 2nd defendant dated 8th March 2021 is dismissed with costs.
  • The plaintiff's claim against the 2nd defendant remains to be canvassed in court.