[2024] KEHC 1160 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 1160 (KLR)

The court found that there was a valid contract between the applicant and respondent, which contained an arbitration clause (clause 14) requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration. The contract did not specify an appointing authority for the arbitrator, and the parties were unable to agree on the appointment....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 1160 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Uruku Electricals Contractors Limited; Respondent: Meru Wood Industries Ltd/Hitec Electrical Contractors Ltd Jv; Interested Party: Chairman, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case E112 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Originating Summons Seeking Appointment of Arbitrator
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement, Appointment of Arbitrator, Contractual Disputes, Non Payment of Contract Sum
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Agreement Appointment of Arbitrator Contractual Disputes Non Payment of Contract Sum

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

Parties

Uruku Electricals Contractors Limited

Applicant

Meru Wood Industries Ltd/Hitec Electrical Contractors Ltd Jv

Respondent

Chairman, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Originating Summons Seeking Appointment of Arbitrator

  1. 1 Whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the court should order the appointment of an arbitrator where the contract does not specify an appointing authority and parties have failed to agree.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute concerning non-payment under the contract should be referred to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a valid contract between the applicant and respondent, which contained an arbitration clause (clause 14) requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration. The contract did not specify an appointing authority for the arbitrator, and the parties were unable to agree on the appointment. The respondent, despite being served, did not oppose the application. In these circumstances, the court held that it was just and proper to grant the orders sought by the applicant, namely, to direct the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to appoint an arbitrator to hear and determine the dispute. The court further directed that the appointment be made within 14...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators shall appoint an arbitrator to hear and determine the dispute between the applicant and the respondent regarding the contract for construction and extension of LV single phase lines and service cables in Meru County.
  • The appointment of the arbitrator shall be made not later than 14 days upon receipt by the Chairman or his representative of all necessary documents.