[2006] KEHC 1008 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act by filing the consent to arbitrate and the certified arbitral award. There was no opposition from the Defendant, and the statutory prerequisites for recognition and enforcement were satisfied. Accordingly,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1008 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Thika Wax Works Limited; Defendant: Vivek Mehta t/a Stratford Supplies & Services
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 515 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Arbitral Award Enforcement, Recognition of Awards, Consent to Arbitration, Commercial Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thika Wax Works Limited
Plaintiff
Vivek Mehta t/a Stratford Supplies & Services
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitral award dated 26th June, 2006 should be recognized and enforced by the High Court.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff has complied with the statutory requirements for enforcement of an arbitral award under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act by filing the consent to arbitrate and the certified arbitral award. There was no opposition from the Defendant, and the statutory prerequisites for recognition and enforcement were satisfied. Accordingly, the court recognized the arbitral award and granted leave to the Plaintiff to enforce it as a decree of the court. The court also awarded the costs of the application to the Plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The final award of the sole arbitrator A. F. Gross dated 26th June, 2006 is recognized by the court.
- Leave is granted to the Plaintiff to enforce the award as a decree of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
(MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 515 of 2000
THIKA WAX WORKS LIMITED …………....................................................……………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
VIVEK MEHTA T/A STRATFORDSUPPLIES & SERVICES ……………………DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff has moved this court by virtue of Section 36(1) of The Arbitration Act. The Plaintiff seeks the order of recognition and enforcement of the final Award of the sole Arbitrator A. F. Gross dated 26th June, 2006. The Plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of the application sworn by the Plaintiff’s General Manager. He deponed that on 11th May, 2005 the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a consent which was filed in this matter whereby the parties agreed that the matter be referred to arbitrator A. F. Gross as the sole arbitrator. That after the parties filed their respective claims and defences the matter was heard and concluded before the said arbitrator. The arbitrator made a finding in favour of the Plaintiff dated 26th June, 2006. Subsequent to that finding the Defendant’s advocate corresponded with the Plaintiff’s advocate whereby the defendant made proposals for settlement of the Award. Further the Defendant personally called on the Plaintiff’s representative seeking to pay less than the amount of the Award. The Plaintiff general manager finally stated that the Plaintiff seeks an order for enforcement of the Award of the sole Arbitrator. The application was unopposed and even though the Defendant was represented at the hearing there was no submission made in opposition to the Plaintiff’s application. Section 36(1) of The Arbitration Act provides that an arbitral award irrespective of the state in which it was made, shall be recognized as binding upon an application in writing to the High Court. The requirement placed upon the applicant is that it would file an authenticated original arbitral award and the original arbitral agreement. The Plaintiff in this case filed the consent reached by the parties agreeing to go to arbitration before a single arbitrator. Further the Plaintiff has filed a certified arbitral award. The court therefore, is of the view that the orders sought by the Plaintiff ought to be granted as prayed. The court therefore grants the following orders:-
1. That the final award of the sole arbitrator A. F. Gross dated 26th June, 2006 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is hereby recognized by this Honourable court.
2. That the court grants leave to the Plaintiff to enforce the award as a decree hereof.
3. That the costs of the Chamber Summons dated 19th September, 2006 are awarded to the Plaintiff.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated and delivered this 23rd October, 2006.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE