[2017] KEHC 1866 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1866 (KLR)

The court found that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate over the Motonyi-Pimbiniet road works because the contract between the parties had been mutually terminated, ending both contractual and arbitral obligations. The applicant's argument that the issue of jurisdiction was res judicata was rejected, as the prior High Court ruling only confirmed jurisdiction in the context of the original contract, not for works undertaken after termination. The court further held that the arbitrator's award contravened statutory procurement requirements and exceeded permissible contract variation limits. The grounds advanced for review were found to be long drawn out and not errors apparent...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 1866 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Prime Tech Engineering Ltd; Respondent: Narok County Government
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Ruling and Consequential Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Review, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Public Procurement Compliance, Res Judicata, Error on Face of Record, Contractual Variation Limits
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award Review Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Public Procurement Compliance Res Judicata Error on Face of Record +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prime Tech Engineering Ltd

Applicant

Narok County Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review of Court Ruling and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sole arbitrator had jurisdiction to arbitrate on the gravelling works on Motony-Pimbiniet road.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator was bound by the Public Procurement and Disposal Act of 2005 and related regulations.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to the prayers sought in the chamber summons, including review of the ruling and consequential orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate over the Motonyi-Pimbiniet road works because the contract between the parties had been mutually terminated, ending both contractual and arbitral obligations. The applicant's argument that the issue of jurisdiction was res judicata was rejected, as the prior High Court ruling only confirmed jurisdiction in the context of the original contract, not for works undertaken after termination. The court further held that the arbitrator's award contravened statutory procurement requirements and exceeded permissible contract variation limits. The grounds advanced for review were found to be long drawn out and not errors apparent...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order as to costs.