[2018] KEHC 10144 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 10144 (KLR)

The court found that the arbitral award dated 6th September 2016 had been properly filed and that the defendant's challenge to the award under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act had already been dismissed. There being no opposition to the application for adoption, and all procedural requirements having been met, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 10144 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Worldwide City Ventures Ltd; Defendant: Muigai Thumbi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 106 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Adopt Arbitral Award as Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; arbitral award adopted as judgment of the court.
Judges
GL Nzioka
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Enforcement, Adoption of Arbitral Award, Challenge to Arbitral Award
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Award Enforcement Adoption of Arbitral Award Challenge to Arbitral Award

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Worldwide City Ventures Ltd

Plaintiff

Muigai Thumbi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Adopt Arbitral Award as Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award dated 6th September 2016 should be adopted as the judgment of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the application to challenge the arbitral award under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act affects enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitral award dated 6th September 2016 had been properly filed and that the defendant's challenge to the award under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act had already been dismissed. There being no opposition to the application for adoption, and all procedural requirements having been met, the court held that the applicant was entitled to have the arbitral award adopted as the judgment of the court for purposes of enforcement. The application was therefore allowed as prayed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; arbitral award adopted as judgment of the court.

Orders

  • The arbitral award dated 6th September 2016 is adopted as the judgment of the court.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.