JUDGMENT
1. The applicant filed the chamber summons dated 11.2.2025 under section 36 of the Arbitration Act seeking the recognition, adoption and entry of judgment for Kshs. 6,523,447.27 in terms of the final award dated 18.11.2024 by Mr. Simon Saili Malonza, C. Arb., FCIArb.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant’s business controller, Jonathan Van Eetvelde on 11.2.2025. It is further supported by written submissions dated 15.11.2025.
3. It was deposed that the parties entered into an agreement dated 27.9.2017 for the construction of outstanding tower foundations from Tower Location 1 to 133 and a second agreement dated 14.2.2018 for the completion of tower foundations 140, 145 and 152.
4. The applicant further deposed that that the parties were involved in a dispute arising from the subject agreements, which dispute was referred for arbitration. The arbitrator was appointed on 18.1.2022 and the final award was published on 18.11.2024.
5. The applicant stated that it received the final award on 13.1.2025 and that it filed the award in court on 7.2.2025.
6. The applicant asserted that the court has power and jurisdiction to recognize and enforce the final award as sought. It also asserted that the arbitral award is final and binding upon the parties as per section 32 A of the Arbitration Act.
7. The applicant submitted that the respondent has not filed an application to set aside the award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act within the 3-month period allowed.
8. The applicant relied on: -
(1) Kenya Medical Supplies Authority v Universal Corporation Limited; National Treasury and Economic Planning & another (Intended Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 13403 (KLR)
(2) Dinesh Construction Limited & another v Aircon Electra Services (Nairobi) Limited [2021] KEHC 6762 (KLR)
(3) Njenga v Kahuho [2023] KEHC 20289 (KLR)
(4) Maurice Oduor Nyakone v Diamond Property Merchants [2021] KEELC 4198 (KLR)
Response
9. The respondent filed written submissions dated 11.5.2026. It contended that the application is defective for non-compliance with section 36 (3) of the Arbitration Act as the applicant has not produced a legally recognizable arbitral award. It relied on Nyutu Agrovet v Airtel Networks Ltd [2019] eKLR to the effect that arbitration enforcement proceedings must strictly comply with the statutory requirements.
Analysis and Determination
10. Section 36 of the Arbitration Act provides: -
“36. Recognition and enforcement of awards
(1) A domestic arbitral award, shall be recognized as binding and, upon application in writing to the High Court, shall be enforced subject to this section and section 37.
(2) ….
(3) Unless the High Court otherwise orders, the party relying on an arbitral award or applying for its enforcement must furnish—
(a) the original arbitral award or a duly certified copy of it; and
(b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it.
11. The applicant exhibited certified copies of the two agreements dated 27.9.2017 and 14.2.2018, containing arbitration clauses at clauses 17.2.
12. The applicant also exhibited a certified copy of the final award published on 18.11.2024.
13. The court finds that the applicant complied with section 36 (3). Thus, the respondent’s contrary contention thereto is not merited.
14. There was no application filed by the respondent to set aside the arbitral award under section 35.
15. There is no ground for refusal of such recognition or enforcement of the award under section 37.
Disposal
16. Accordingly, the chamber summons dated 11.2.2025 is allowed with costs. The award is recognized and shall be enforced as an order of this court. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi through Microsoft Teams online application this 2nd day of July, 2026
-------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Ms. Odhiambo for Ketraco
Ms. Mwaluko for Gitau for Applicant
CA – Ivan/Aggrey
1. The applicant filed the chamber summons dated 11.2.2025 under section 36 of the Arbitration Act seeking the recognition, adoption and entry of judgment for Kshs. 6,523,447.27 in terms of the final award dated 18.11.2024 by Mr. Simon Saili Malonza, C. Arb., FCIArb.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant’s business controller, Jonathan Van Eetvelde on 11.2.2025. It is further supported by written submissions dated 15.11.2025.
3. It was deposed that the parties entered into an agreement dated 27.9.2017 for the construction of outstanding tower foundations from Tower Location 1 to 133 and a second agreement dated 14.2.2018 for the completion of tower foundations 140, 145 and 152.
4. The applicant further deposed that that the parties were involved in a dispute arising from the subject agreements, which dispute was referred for arbitration. The arbitrator was appointed on 18.1.2022 and the final award was published on 18.11.2024.
5. The applicant stated that it received the final award on 13.1.2025 and that it filed the award in court on 7.2.2025.
6. The applicant asserted that the court has power and jurisdiction to recognize and enforce the final award as sought. It also asserted that the arbitral award is final and binding upon the parties as per section 32 A of the Arbitration Act.
7. The applicant submitted that the respondent has not filed an application to set aside the award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act within the 3-month period allowed.
8. The applicant relied on: -
(1) Kenya Medical Supplies Authority v Universal Corporation Limited; National Treasury and Economic Planning & another (Intended Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 13403 (KLR)
(2) Dinesh Construction Limited & another v Aircon Electra Services (Nairobi) Limited [2021] KEHC 6762 (KLR)
(3) Njenga v Kahuho [2023] KEHC 20289 (KLR)
(4) Maurice Oduor Nyakone v Diamond Property Merchants [2021] KEELC 4198 (KLR)
Response
9. The respondent filed written submissions dated 11.5.2026. It contended that the application is defective for non-compliance with section 36 (3) of the Arbitration Act as the applicant has not produced a legally recognizable arbitral award. It relied on Nyutu Agrovet v Airtel Networks Ltd [2019] eKLR to the effect that arbitration enforcement proceedings must strictly comply with the statutory requirements.
Analysis and Determination
10. Section 36 of the Arbitration Act provides: -
“36. Recognition and enforcement of awards
(1) A domestic arbitral award, shall be recognized as binding and, upon application in writing to the High Court, shall be enforced subject to this section and section 37.
(2) ….
(3) Unless the High Court otherwise orders, the party relying on an arbitral award or applying for its enforcement must furnish—
(a) the original arbitral award or a duly certified copy of it; and
(b) the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it.
11. The applicant exhibited certified copies of the two agreements dated 27.9.2017 and 14.2.2018, containing arbitration clauses at clauses 17.2.
12. The applicant also exhibited a certified copy of the final award published on 18.11.2024.
13. The court finds that the applicant complied with section 36 (3). Thus, the respondent’s contrary contention thereto is not merited.
14. There was no application filed by the respondent to set aside the arbitral award under section 35.
15. There is no ground for refusal of such recognition or enforcement of the award under section 37.
Disposal
16. Accordingly, the chamber summons dated 11.2.2025 is allowed with costs. The award is recognized and shall be enforced as an order of this court. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi through Microsoft Teams online application this 2nd day of July, 2026
-------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Ms. Odhiambo for Ketraco
Ms. Mwaluko for Gitau for Applicant
CA – Ivan/Aggrey