[2023] KEHC 27273 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 27273 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff's claim was not a contractual dispute between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, but rather an action to enforce a performance guarantee issued by the 1st Defendant. The arbitration clause in the construction contract between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant did not cover the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 27273 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rosslyn Suites Limited; Defendant: Britam General Insurance Company (K) Ltd; Defendant: Rokoh (K) Construction Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case E503 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application to Stay Proceedings and Refer Dispute to Arbitration
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
NW Sifuna
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clauses, Performance Guarantees, Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Arbitration Clauses Performance Guarantees Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process

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

Parties

Rosslyn Suites Limited

Plaintiff

Britam General Insurance Company (K) Ltd

Defendant

Rokoh (K) Construction Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application to Stay Proceedings and Refer Dispute to Arbitration

  1. 1 Whether the dispute between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant falls within the scope of the arbitration clause in the construction contract.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings against the 2nd Defendant should be stayed and the dispute referred to arbitration under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant's application is an abuse of court process and intended to delay the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff's claim was not a contractual dispute between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, but rather an action to enforce a performance guarantee issued by the 1st Defendant. The arbitration clause in the construction contract between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant did not cover the subject matter of the suit. Furthermore, the 1st Defendant, who issued the guarantee, was not a party to the construction contract or its arbitration clause and could not be compelled to arbitrate. The 2nd Defendant's application was found to be an afterthought, filed only after a request for judgment had been made, and was intended to delay the proceedings. The court held that...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The 2nd Defendant's Chamber Summons dated 6th October 2023 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.