https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10276

Recosib LLP v Platinum Helix Ventures East Africa Ltd & 2 others (Commercial Arbitration Cause E100 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10276 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (2 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10276 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Commercial Arbitration Cause E100 of 2025 MO Ado, J July 2, 2026 Between Recosib LLP Applicant and Platinum Helix Ventures East Africa Limited 1st Respondent George Gakuo 2nd Respondent Isaac Mokaya 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.Before the Court is the Applicant's Chamber Summons dated 16th December 2025 brought under Sections 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1995 and Rules 6 and 9 of the Arbitration Rules, 1997 seeking orders that:i.The Final Arbitral Award published by Prof. Ike Ehiribe, C. Arb., FCIArb on 8th December 2025 be recognized and adopted as a judgment of this Court;ii.Leave be granted to the Applicant to enforce the said Award as a decree of this Court; andiii.Costs of the application be borne by the Respondents. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of Peter Gacheru, a director of the Applicant, sworn on 16th December 2025. He deposed that the Applicant and the Respondents were parties to a Loan Trade Agreement dated 8th September 2022 and an Addendum dated 23rd November 2022, both of which contained an arbitration clause. 3.Mr. Gacheru further deposed that following a dispute concerning repayment of the financial facility advanced to the Respondents, the matter was referred to arbitration before Prof. Ike Ehiribe, C.Arb., FCIArb, who rendered a Final Award on 8th December 2025. 4.The deponent further states that the Award has not been satisfied and that none of the statutory grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement under section 37 of the Arbitration Act has been established. Copies of the arbitration agreement and the Final Award are annexed to the affidavit. 5.The Respondents, though served, neither entered appearance nor filed any response opposing the application. They also did not challenge the Award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act. 6.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant, through Mogane & Company Advocates, filed submissions dated 30th April 2026. Again, no submissions were filed on behalf of the Respondents. Analysis and Determination 7.Having duly considered the pleadings and the Applicant’s submissions, I find that the sole issue for determination is: Whether the Final Arbitral Award dated 8th December 2025 should be recognized and enforced as a judgment and decree of this Court. 8.Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act provides:“A domestic arbitral award shall be recognized as binding and, upon application in writing to the High Court, shall be enforced subject to this section and section 37." 9.Under Section 36(3), a party seeking recognition and enforcement is required to furnish the Court with the original award or a duly certified copy thereof and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. 10.From the record before Court, the Applicant has exhibited a copy of the Final Award dated 8th December 2025 as well as the Loan Trade Agreement containing the arbitration clause. The Court is therefore satisfied that the documentary requirements stipulated under Section 36 have been met. 11.The Final Award demonstrates that the dispute was heard by a duly appointed sole arbitrator acting pursuant to the arbitration agreement executed by the parties. 12.The Award further demonstrates that the Arbitrator heard the parties, considered their pleadings, documentary evidence and submissions, and ultimately found in favour of the Applicant, awarding a sum of “Kshs. 319,242,640, being the principal amount plus finance charges accrued as at 2 October 2024” against the Respondents jointly and severally 13.The Tribunal also awarded interest at 5% per annum from 2 October 2024 until payment in full, and costs of the arbitration. 14.In the present case, the Respondents have not filed any response or submissions to the application. More importantly, they have not sought to set aside the Award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act. 15.The Court has also considered whether any of the grounds set out under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act have been established. I find none. 16.The policy of the Arbitration Act, as espoused under Section 10 of the Act, is to uphold the finality of arbitral awards and to limit judicial intervention except in circumstances expressly provided by statute. 17.The Supreme Court in Nyutu Agrovet Limited v Airtel Networks Kenya Limited; Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya Branch) (Interested Party), [2019] KESC 11 (KLR) (6 December 2019), held that courts should respect the autonomy of the arbitral process and intervene only within the confines of the Arbitration Act. 18.On the material presented before Court, I am satisfied that the Award was rendered pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement, by a duly appointed arbitrator, and that none of the statutory grounds (whether under Section 35 or 37 of the Arbitration Act) for refusal of recognition and enforcement have been demonstrated. 19.Accordingly, there exists no legal impediment to the recognition and enforcement of the Award. The Court therefore finds merit in the application dated 16th December 2025 and makes the following orders: 20.The Final Arbitral Award made and published by Prof. Ike Ehiribe, C.Arb., FCIArb on 8th December 2025 is hereby recognized and adopted as a judgment of this Court. 21.Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to enforce the said Award as a decree of this Court. 22.The Applicant shall have the costs of this application, which is hereby assessed for Kshs. 50,000/=. 23.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADOJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTIn the Presence of:Moses C/A……………… for the Applicant……………for the Respondent