Background and Introduction
1. Before this Court is an amended Chamber Summons dated 4th August 2023 brought by the applicant seeking the recognition and enforcement of a final arbitral award published on 15th March 2023 by Mr. Collins Namachanja and Mr. Kyalo Mbobu, EBS. The applicant seeks leave to enforce the award as a decree of this Court in the sum of Kshs. 4,663,536.21 together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 26th April 2023 until payment in full.
2. The applicant avers that the arbitral award has not been challenged under Section 35(3) of the Arbitration Act, and that more than three months have since lapsed. As such, it contends that the award has become final and binding, and is ripe for enforcement in terms of Sections 36 and 37 of the Act.
3. The respondents have not opposed the application in principle but maintain that they have fully satisfied their obligations under the award. They assert that they have already paid their respective portions of the principal amount, party-and-party costs, and the costs of the reference in line with the award and subsequent post-award negotiations. They deem the claim by the applicant as unreasonable and made in bad faith.
Analysis and Determination
4. What emerges from the record is that there is no dispute as to the existence, validity, or finality of the arbitral award. Rather, the dispute appears to concern the quantum said to be outstanding, as against the respondents.
5. The legal framework governing judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings is rooted in the Arbitration Act (hereinafter the Act), which affirms the principles of party autonomy, minimal court interference, and the finality of arbitral awards. Section 32A of the Act encapsulates this core principle by providing that:
“Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitral award shall be final and binding upon the parties to the arbitration.”
6. This provision underscores the central philosophy of arbitration as a private and binding dispute resolution mechanism chosen by the parties. It affirms that, once an award is issued, the courts are not to revisit or reopen the merits of the dispute except in narrowly defined instances permitted under the Act. The parties, having voluntarily submitted to arbitration, are generally bound by the outcome.
7. Aligned with this philosophy, Section 10 of the Act imposes a strict limitation on the jurisdiction of courts in arbitral matters. It provides that:
“Except as provided in this Act, no court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act.”
8. The intent of this provision is to protect the autonomy and integrity of the arbitral process from judicial interference and to prevent parties from using the courts to circumvent the consequences of an unfavorable award. The role of the courts is, therefore, supportive rather than supervisory, intended to give effect to arbitration agreements and facilitate the enforcement of awards, not to act as an appellate forum.
9. With respect to the issues raised by the parties, I am aware that this Court is not sitting as an appellate forum over the arbitral tribunal. The Court's role at this stage is limited to determining whether the requirements for recognition and enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act have been met. Once those requirements are satisfied and no application for setting aside the award has been brought within the prescribed period, the Court is duty-bound to give effect to the award.
10. Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that an arbitral award shall be recognized as binding and enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Act, unless refused on the limited grounds set out under Section 37. None of those grounds have been raised by the respondents. On the contrary, the applicants have complied with the requirements set out under Section 36(3) of the Act. There is therefore no reason as to why the application should not be allowed.
11. While the dispute as to the exact sum outstanding may be a legitimate issue, it does not fall within the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction at the recognition stage. I take the view that the dispute over the sums due is not a bar to recognition of the award. If anything, that dispute arises at the execution phase, and the parties may take up the issue through appropriate mechanisms for execution or settlement.
12. Even more significantly, I have carefully reviewed the final arbitral award and note that the arbitrators clearly delineated the operative terms of the award at page 46. This section of the award sets out the final orders, which encapsulate the tribunal’s conclusive determinations on liability, quantum, and costs. The court's mandate is not to interpret or re-evaluate the reasoning of the arbitrators, but to recognize and enforce the award in accordance with the law.
Disposition
13. In the result, I am satisfied that the application meets the threshold under Sections 36 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. I accordingly make the following orders:
i. The final arbitral award dated 15th March 2023 is hereby recognized and adopted as a decree of this Court.
ii. Leave is granted to the applicant to enforce the said award in the sum of Kshs. 4,663,536.21 together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 26th April 2023 until payment in full.
iii. Any dispute as to the actual amount already settled or remaining due shall be addressed in the course of execution proceedings.
iv. Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
1. Before this Court is an amended Chamber Summons dated 4th August 2023 brought by the applicant seeking the recognition and enforcement of a final arbitral award published on 15th March 2023 by Mr. Collins Namachanja and Mr. Kyalo Mbobu, EBS. The applicant seeks leave to enforce the award as a decree of this Court in the sum of Kshs. 4,663,536.21 together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 26th April 2023 until payment in full.
2. The applicant avers that the arbitral award has not been challenged under Section 35(3) of the Arbitration Act, and that more than three months have since lapsed. As such, it contends that the award has become final and binding, and is ripe for enforcement in terms of Sections 36 and 37 of the Act.
3. The respondents have not opposed the application in principle but maintain that they have fully satisfied their obligations under the award. They assert that they have already paid their respective portions of the principal amount, party-and-party costs, and the costs of the reference in line with the award and subsequent post-award negotiations. They deem the claim by the applicant as unreasonable and made in bad faith.
Analysis and Determination
4. What emerges from the record is that there is no dispute as to the existence, validity, or finality of the arbitral award. Rather, the dispute appears to concern the quantum said to be outstanding, as against the respondents.
5. The legal framework governing judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings is rooted in the Arbitration Act (hereinafter the Act), which affirms the principles of party autonomy, minimal court interference, and the finality of arbitral awards. Section 32A of the Act encapsulates this core principle by providing that:
“Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitral award shall be final and binding upon the parties to the arbitration.”
6. This provision underscores the central philosophy of arbitration as a private and binding dispute resolution mechanism chosen by the parties. It affirms that, once an award is issued, the courts are not to revisit or reopen the merits of the dispute except in narrowly defined instances permitted under the Act. The parties, having voluntarily submitted to arbitration, are generally bound by the outcome.
7. Aligned with this philosophy, Section 10 of the Act imposes a strict limitation on the jurisdiction of courts in arbitral matters. It provides that:
“Except as provided in this Act, no court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act.”
8. The intent of this provision is to protect the autonomy and integrity of the arbitral process from judicial interference and to prevent parties from using the courts to circumvent the consequences of an unfavorable award. The role of the courts is, therefore, supportive rather than supervisory, intended to give effect to arbitration agreements and facilitate the enforcement of awards, not to act as an appellate forum.
9. With respect to the issues raised by the parties, I am aware that this Court is not sitting as an appellate forum over the arbitral tribunal. The Court's role at this stage is limited to determining whether the requirements for recognition and enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act have been met. Once those requirements are satisfied and no application for setting aside the award has been brought within the prescribed period, the Court is duty-bound to give effect to the award.
10. Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act provides that an arbitral award shall be recognized as binding and enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Act, unless refused on the limited grounds set out under Section 37. None of those grounds have been raised by the respondents. On the contrary, the applicants have complied with the requirements set out under Section 36(3) of the Act. There is therefore no reason as to why the application should not be allowed.
11. While the dispute as to the exact sum outstanding may be a legitimate issue, it does not fall within the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction at the recognition stage. I take the view that the dispute over the sums due is not a bar to recognition of the award. If anything, that dispute arises at the execution phase, and the parties may take up the issue through appropriate mechanisms for execution or settlement.
12. Even more significantly, I have carefully reviewed the final arbitral award and note that the arbitrators clearly delineated the operative terms of the award at page 46. This section of the award sets out the final orders, which encapsulate the tribunal’s conclusive determinations on liability, quantum, and costs. The court's mandate is not to interpret or re-evaluate the reasoning of the arbitrators, but to recognize and enforce the award in accordance with the law.
Disposition
13. In the result, I am satisfied that the application meets the threshold under Sections 36 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. I accordingly make the following orders:
i. The final arbitral award dated 15th March 2023 is hereby recognized and adopted as a decree of this Court.
ii. Leave is granted to the applicant to enforce the said award in the sum of Kshs. 4,663,536.21 together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 26th April 2023 until payment in full.
iii. Any dispute as to the actual amount already settled or remaining due shall be addressed in the course of execution proceedings.
iv. Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE