[2021] KEHC 6507 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 6507 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had satisfied all statutory requirements for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act by providing the original agreement and certified copy of the award. The respondent did not raise any valid grounds under Section 37 to resist...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 6507 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Pavanputra Enterprises Limited; Respondent: Keroche Breweries Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E502 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
JV Juma
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Enforcement, Recognition of Awards, Contractual Disputes, Consent Orders
Source Language
en
Alternative Dispute Resolution Commercial and Corporate Arbitral Award Enforcement Recognition of Awards Contractual Disputes Consent Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pavanputra Enterprises Limited

Applicant

Keroche Breweries Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award dated 29th April 2019 should be recognized 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 demonstrated any valid ground under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act to resist recognition or enforcement of the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had satisfied all statutory requirements for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act by providing the original agreement and certified copy of the award. The respondent did not raise any valid grounds under Section 37 to resist recognition or enforcement, nor did they challenge the award or the arbitral process. The respondent's plea for more time to pay, based on business hardship and partial payment, was not supported by a formal application to vary the consent order and thus could not be entertained by the court. Consequently, the court recognized and adopted the arbitral award as a judgment and...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The Final Award prepared by Mr. Steven Oundo dated 29th April, 2019 is recognized and adopted as a judgment of the court.
  • Leave is granted to the applicant to enforce the award as a decree of the court.