[2015] KEHC 8358 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 8358 (KLR)

The court held that the grounds advanced by the respondent—public policy, unjust enrichment, and improper reliance on a 'without prejudice' deed—were not substantiated. The court found no evidence that the award was contrary to public policy, as delay in delivery is not a statutory ground for refusal and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 8358 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: TCAT Limited; Respondent: Joseph Arthur Kibutu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 December 2015
Case Number
? 213 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Outcome
application allowed; arbitral award recognized and enforced as order of the court; costs awarded to applicant
Judges
CM Kariuki
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Enforcement, Public Policy Exception, Unjust Enrichment, Sale of Goods Disputes
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitral Award Enforcement Public Policy Exception Unjust Enrichment Sale of Goods Disputes

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TCAT Limited

Applicant

Joseph Arthur Kibutu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enforcement of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award dated 19th December, 2013 should be recognized and enforced as a decree of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has established grounds under section 37 of the Arbitration Act to resist enforcement, including public policy and unjust enrichment.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's reliance on a deed of acknowledgement marked 'without prejudice' invalidates the award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the grounds advanced by the respondent—public policy, unjust enrichment, and improper reliance on a 'without prejudice' deed—were not substantiated. The court found no evidence that the award was contrary to public policy, as delay in delivery is not a statutory ground for refusal and the Arbitration Act does not prescribe a time frame for rendering awards. The arbitrator's findings on default and remedies were based on the facts and within his jurisdiction, and the court cannot interfere with factual determinations. The issue of the deed of acknowledgement being marked 'without prejudice' was also a factual matter resolved by the arbitrator, and there was no evidence...

Court Disposition

application allowed; arbitral award recognized and enforced as order of the court; costs awarded to applicant

Orders

  • The arbitral award dated 19th December, 2013 is recognized and adopted as the order of the court.
  • The award shall be enforced as a decree of the court.