[2021] KEHC 86 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 86 (KLR)

The court found that both distribution agreements between the parties contained valid and binding arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration. As a result, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive dispute. However, under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 86 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Tembo Tamu Limited; Defendant: Kenya Breweries Limited; Defendant: UDV (Kenya) Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit E767 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Interim Orders
Outcome
Matter referred to arbitration; interim orders maintained for 60 days; court lacks jurisdiction to determine substantive dispute.
Judges
MW Muigai
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Distribution Agreements, Interim Injunctions, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Agreements Distribution Agreements Interim Injunctions Jurisdiction of Court

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tembo Tamu Limited

Plaintiff

Kenya Breweries Limited

Defendant

UDV (Kenya) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Interim Orders

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute in light of the arbitration clauses in the distribution agreements.
  2. 2 Whether interim protective orders should be maintained pending the appointment of an arbitrator and commencement of arbitration proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both distribution agreements between the parties contained valid and binding arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be resolved through arbitration. As a result, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive dispute. However, under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, the court retained the power to grant interim measures to preserve the subject matter and maintain the status quo pending the appointment of an arbitrator and commencement of arbitral proceedings. The court therefore referred the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the agreements, ordered the parties to appoint an arbitrator within 60 days (failing which the Deputy...

Court Disposition

Matter referred to arbitration; interim orders maintained for 60 days; court lacks jurisdiction to determine substantive dispute.

Orders

  • The dispute is referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clauses in the distribution agreements.
  • The interim orders granted on 1st September 2021 and 9th September 2021 are to be maintained for 60 days.