[2019] KEHC 7728 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 7728 (KLR)

The court found that the arbitral award dated 23rd October 2015, having been made pursuant to a consent reference to arbitration, is enforceable as a judgment of the court except for the portion relating to general damages, which had already been set aside by a previous court ruling. There was no substantive opposition from the defendant to the enforcement of the remaining parts of the award. The court, guided by Order 46 Rule 16(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, granted the plaintiff's application to file and enforce the arbitral award as a decree, excluding the set aside general damages, and awarded costs of the application to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 7728 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Wanjama; Defendant: Kenya Breweries Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Case Number
Civil Case 53 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Enforce Arbitral Award
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to enforce arbitral award granted, save for general damages previously set aside.
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Enforcement, Setting Aside Award, Consent Reference to Arbitration
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Award Enforcement Setting Aside Award Consent Reference to Arbitration

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Wanjama

Plaintiff

Kenya Breweries Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Enforce Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award dated 23rd October 2015 should be filed in court and enforced as a decree against the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the court should enter judgment in terms of the arbitral award, excluding the general damages previously set aside.
  3. 3 Whether there is any valid opposition to the plaintiff's application for enforcement of the arbitral award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitral award dated 23rd October 2015, having been made pursuant to a consent reference to arbitration, is enforceable as a judgment of the court except for the portion relating to general damages, which had already been set aside by a previous court ruling. There was no substantive opposition from the defendant to the enforcement of the remaining parts of the award. The court, guided by Order 46 Rule 16(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, granted the plaintiff's application to file and enforce the arbitral award as a decree, excluding the set aside general damages, and awarded costs of the application to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to enforce arbitral award granted, save for general damages previously set aside.

Orders

  • The arbitral award dated 23rd October 2015 is deemed filed by order of the court.
  • Judgment is entered according to the award, excluding general damages set aside by the ruling of 16th February 2017.