[2025] KEHC 9464 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9464 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged error on the face of the record was not self-evident and required elaborate argument, which is not permissible for review. The applicant's grievances related to the evaluation of evidence and interpretation of law, which are matters for appeal, not review. The claim of newly discovered evidence regarding the arbitrator's qualifications was unsupported and should have been raised through the proper channels during the arbitral process. On the issue of stay of execution, the applicant did not provide sufficient...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9464 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Solfin Solutions Limited; Respondent: Margaret Wawuda Mwakima
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Voi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
2 July 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E053 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Review of Arbitral Award Enforcement
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Enforcement, Review of Court Decisions, Stay of Execution, Public Policy Challenge
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award Enforcement Review of Court Decisions Stay of Execution Public Policy Challenge

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solfin Solutions Limited

Applicant

Margaret Wawuda Mwakima

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Review of Arbitral Award Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the decree arising from the arbitral award.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for review of the court's ruling dated 8th April 2025.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The alleged error on the face of the record was not self-evident and required elaborate argument, which is not permissible for review. The applicant's grievances related to the evaluation of evidence and interpretation of law, which are matters for appeal, not review. The claim of newly discovered evidence regarding the arbitrator's qualifications was unsupported and should have been raised through the proper channels during the arbitral process. On the issue of stay of execution, the applicant did not provide sufficient...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 10th June 2025 is dismissed.
  • The prayer for stay of execution is declined.