[2021] KEHC 4155 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 4155 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant's objection to the arbitral proceedings on the basis of limitation of actions was not properly raised before the arbitral tribunal as required by Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitration agreement between the parties was clear that any dispute, including limitation issues, was to be determined under the Arbitration Act, and the tribunal had the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction. The applicant, having participated in the arbitration without raising the limitation objection at the earliest opportunity, was deemed to have waived the right to object under Section 5 of the Act. The court emphasized the principle of party autonomy and the...

Citation
[2021] KEHC 4155 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Ouma Onyango; Respondent: Mats Karlsson
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E1219 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Halt Arbitration
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JM Mativo
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Limitation of Actions, Joint Venture Disputes, Party Autonomy, Court Intervention in Arbitration, Waiver of Objection
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Agreements Limitation of Actions Joint Venture Disputes Party Autonomy Court Intervention in Arbitration +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Ouma Onyango

Applicant

Mats Karlsson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Halt Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to halt arbitral proceedings based on limitation of actions grounds.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's objection to arbitration on limitation grounds was properly raised before the arbitral tribunal.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement and the Arbitration Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's objection to the arbitral proceedings on the basis of limitation of actions was not properly raised before the arbitral tribunal as required by Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitration agreement between the parties was clear that any dispute, including limitation issues, was to be determined under the Arbitration Act, and the tribunal had the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction. The applicant, having participated in the arbitration without raising the limitation objection at the earliest opportunity, was deemed to have waived the right to object under Section 5 of the Act. The court emphasized the principle of party autonomy and the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 10th November 2020 is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the application to the respondent.