1. In a ruling delivered on 17th November 2025, the Court below referred this matter to this Court for clarification of certain matters before it could render a substantive ruling on the questions before it.
2. I have considered the issues raised. I note that the decree is dated 21st June 2021. The decree arose from the adoption of the arbitral award as the court's judgment on 9th June 2021. The court's decision to adopt the arbitral award has not been reviewed or set aside; it remains valid and binding. It is the adoption of the arbitral award that gave rise to the decree.
3. I am not persuaded that the decree is invalid. The fact that it cannot be found in the CTS reflects the fact that the decree predates the CTS system. I agree with Ms Punjani that there is no requirement for the name of the judicial officer to be indicated on the decree, nor does the want of name invalidate it.
4. It would appear to me that the Respondent has the means to pay, going by the evidence adduced by the Applicant. Although questions have been raised about how the evidence was acquired, the evidence remains relevant. The Respondent has not rebutted the evidence with any degree of cogency.
5. I am not persuaded by the technical objection raised by the Respondent on the annexures and the participation of an advocate. The court is called upon to do substantive justice, not to get bogged down by trifling matters. This court, as is often said, is called upon to do justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
6. The file shall be forwarded to Mombasa forthwith. The same shall be mentioned before Vishram, J, on 16th September 2026 for further directions.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 9th day of July 2026.
2. I have considered the issues raised. I note that the decree is dated 21st June 2021. The decree arose from the adoption of the arbitral award as the court's judgment on 9th June 2021. The court's decision to adopt the arbitral award has not been reviewed or set aside; it remains valid and binding. It is the adoption of the arbitral award that gave rise to the decree.
3. I am not persuaded that the decree is invalid. The fact that it cannot be found in the CTS reflects the fact that the decree predates the CTS system. I agree with Ms Punjani that there is no requirement for the name of the judicial officer to be indicated on the decree, nor does the want of name invalidate it.
4. It would appear to me that the Respondent has the means to pay, going by the evidence adduced by the Applicant. Although questions have been raised about how the evidence was acquired, the evidence remains relevant. The Respondent has not rebutted the evidence with any degree of cogency.
5. I am not persuaded by the technical objection raised by the Respondent on the annexures and the participation of an advocate. The court is called upon to do substantive justice, not to get bogged down by trifling matters. This court, as is often said, is called upon to do justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
6. The file shall be forwarded to Mombasa forthwith. The same shall be mentioned before Vishram, J, on 16th September 2026 for further directions.
7. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 9th day of July 2026.