[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
- 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 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Uruku Electricals Contractors Limited v Meru Wood Industries Ltd/Hitec Electrical Contractors Ltd Jv; Chairman, Chartere Institute of Arbitrators (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Civil Case E112 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 1160 (KLR) (18 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 1160 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Miscellaneous Civil Case E112 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
January 18, 2024
Between
Uruku Electricals Contractors Limited
Applicant
and
Meru Wood Industries Ltd/Hitec Electrical Contractors Ltd Jv
Respondent
and
Chairman, Chartere Institute Of Arbitrators
Interested Party
Ruling
1. By originating summons dated 02nd November, 2023, the Applicant seeks the following orders:1. That the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators be ordered and or directed to appoint an Arbitrator to hear and determine the dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent in respect of the Contract Agreement for provision of construction and extensions of LV single phase lines and service cables – Last Mile Connectivity Project II(LMCPII) in Meru County valued at KES. 847,710/- (Eight hundred forty-seven thousand, seven hundred ten)2. That the court gives such directions and or orders as may be necessary to effect the appointment of the Arbitrator3. That the costs be borne by the Respondent
2. The Application was based on the following grounds:i.That the Applicant and the Respondent, on 07th February, 2028 entered into a contract for provision of construction and extensions of LV single phase lines and service cables – Last Mile Connectivity Project II(LMCPII) in Meru County valued at KES. 847,710/- (Eight hundred forty-seven thousand, seven hundred ten)ii.That Applicant carried out the contracted works but Respondent has refused to payiii.That clause 14 of the agreement provides for choice of forum of dispute resolution between the parties herein as arbitrationiv.That the contract does not expressly name the appointing authority of the Arbitratorv.That Respondent has declined to agree to mutual appointment of the arbitratorvi.That it is in the interest of justice that this application be allowed
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 02nd November, 2023 by Josephat Murithi Mbogori.
4. According to the deponent, the parties herein, on 07th February, 2028, entered into a contract for provision of construction and extensions of LV single phase lines and service cables – Last Mile Connectivity Project II(LMCPII) in Meru County valued at KES. 847,710/- (Eight hundred forty-seven thousand, seven hundred ten).
5. Consequently, the Applicant carried out the contracted works but Respondent has refused to pay. It was averred that clause 14 of the agreement provides for choice of forum of dispute resolution between the parties herein as arbitration but that the contract does not expressly name the appointing authority of the Arbitrator and Respondent has declined to agree to mutual appointment of the arbitrator.
6. Based on the foregoing it was the Applicant’s position that there is a dispute as to the non-payment of the contract sum which dispute ought to be referred to arbitration as per the terms of clause 14 of the said contract.
7. Though served, Respondent did not file any response to the application and the application is therefore unopposed.
Determination 8. I have considered the application in the light of eth supporting affidavit and annexures thereto.
9. The first issue for determination is whether there exist of an arbitration agreement. In support of the application the Applicant relies on the contract between the parties herein dated 07th February, 2018. That agreement contains an arbitration in clause 14 whereby any dispute arising out of the contract was to be referred to arbitration.
10. The second issue is whether the orders sought are merited. Whereas the contract between the parties provides for resolution of disputes by arbitration, it fails to expressly name the appointing authority of the Arbitrator.
11. There being evidence that the parties have been unable to agree on the manner appointment and identity of the arbitrator, I find that it would be in the interest of justice that the orders sought be granted.
12. It is therefore hereby ordered:1. That the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators appoints an Arbitrator to hear and determine the dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent in respect of the Contract Agreement for provision of construction and extensions of LV single phase lines and service cables – Last Mile Connectivity Project II(LMCPII) in Meru County valued at KES. 847,710/- (Eight hundred forty-seven thousand, seven hundred ten)2. The appointment shall be made not later than 14 days upon receipt by the Chairman or his representative of all necessary documents that will of necessity assist the arbitrator in determining the dispute between the parties herein3. Both parties shall bear the costs of the arbitration4. These orders shall be served on the Respondent and the Interested Party for compliance5. Costs of this application shall be in the cause
DELIVERED IN MERU THIS 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneFor Applicant - Ms. Kinyanjui for Mbaabu M’Inoti & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondent - N/AFor Interested Party - N/A