[2016] KEHC 8717 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 8717 (KLR)

The court found that the arbitral award had already been satisfied by the respondent, who paid the sums due under the award, including principal, interest at 20% per annum, and costs. The applicants' demand for an additional sum of Kshs. 1,182,908.42 as bank interest was misconceived, as the arbitrator had considered and expressly rejected double recovery under this head. The arbitrator awarded interest on the principal and on the bank interest at different rates, but did not intend for the bank interest amount to be paid as a separate sum in addition to the interest awarded. Recognizing and enforcing the award to include this additional sum would be contrary to the public policy of...

Citation
[2016] KEHC 8717 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dr Sunil Sachdev; Applicant: Pushpa Suchdeva; Respondent: Kitisuru Country Villas Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
17 August 2016
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 414 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
BA Mitullah
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Enforcement, Interpretation of Award, Settlement Deeds, Interest on Awards
Source Language
English
Alternative Dispute Resolution Commercial and Corporate Arbitral Award Enforcement Interpretation of Award Settlement Deeds Interest on Awards

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Sunil Sachdev

Applicant

Pushpa Suchdeva

Applicant

Kitisuru Country Villas Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Recognize and Enforce Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award dated 3rd March 2015 should be recognized and enforced as a judgment of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the sum of Kshs. 1,182,908.42 claimed as bank interest is payable under the arbitral award or amounts to double recovery.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral award has already been satisfied by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitral award had already been satisfied by the respondent, who paid the sums due under the award, including principal, interest at 20% per annum, and costs. The applicants' demand for an additional sum of Kshs. 1,182,908.42 as bank interest was misconceived, as the arbitrator had considered and expressly rejected double recovery under this head. The arbitrator awarded interest on the principal and on the bank interest at different rates, but did not intend for the bank interest amount to be paid as a separate sum in addition to the interest awarded. Recognizing and enforcing the award to include this additional sum would be contrary to the public policy of...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to recognize and enforce the arbitral award as a judgment of the court is dismissed.
  • The applicants shall bear the costs of the application.