Enforcement
Kenya
- Case
- Summary
- Final Decision
- This appeal relates to the ruling of Kenyan High Court of Mombasa refusing to set aside an international arbitral award for lack of jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a contract of works. Appellant claims that the award should be set aside on the grounds of public policy and interpretation of section 37 (1) (b) of the Kenyan Arbitration act.
- Strike out the appeal
- Case
- Summary
- Final Decision
- This appeal relates to whether an arbitration award seeking to be recognized and enforced through the court, is caught out by limitation because the court processes did not serve up a directional judgment expeditiously enough to avail the award holder the fruits of his award. A dispute arose out of Sales Contract for 10,000 metric tons of white corn. An international arbitral award was rendered in London in favor of the seller Glencore Grain Limited. The High Court of Kenya set aside the Award on non-compliance of procedural law of Kenya, following which the Court of Appeal held that the lower court had erred in setting aside the arbitration Award. Instead, the court, should have struck out the application for recognition of award for non-compliance rather than setting aside the award.
- Applicant permitted to file a new request for enforcement within 30 days.
- Case
- Summary
- Final Decision
- This application requests the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award as a decree of the Kebyan Court in line with section 36(2) of arbitration act of Kenya Respondent objects to recognition as the: (i) tribunal went beyond the scope of reference to arbitration; (ii) tribunal exceeded its power in applying the UK law as governing law instead of the law of Tanzania, as stipulated in the contract; (iii) award has not gained full force, as it is being challenged in the court of appeal in Stockholm.
- Refused recognition.
- Case
- Summary
- Final Decision
- This appeal relates to a request by applicant to set aside an arbitral award in favor of the Respondent. Applicant contends that the Tribunal erred in its finding did not resolve the dispute in accordance with the agreement and the Laws of Kenya – an offence to public policy, resulting in ambiguous, illogical, unfair and unjust award.
- Refused to set aside award.