Isabirye v Wakainja & 2 Others (Arbitration Cause 18 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Held that the court has jurisdiction to recognize and enforce arbitral awards where the parties agreed to arbitration and the applicant furnishes certified originals of the awards and arbitration agreement. A party who participates in arbitration proceedings without objecting to the arbitrator's appointment within 15 days as required by section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act waives the right to challenge appointment and is estopped from raising the objection at the enforcement stage. The respondents' failure to challenge the awards within 30 days under section 34(3) also renders them time-barred. Both interim and final arbitral awards recognized and decree issued for enforcement.
Outcome
Both arbitral awards recognized and decree issued for enforcement in favor of the Applicant
Facts
The applicant and respondents entered into a partnership to operate Townside High School in Busembatia under a partnership deed dated 28 March 2000, which contained an arbitration clause. Following disputes, the applicant filed a suit in 2009 which was dismissed and the matter referred to arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed by CADER and the arbitration was concluded with interim and final awards issued on 8 November 2016 and 30 June 2017 respectively, both in favor of the applicant. The awards included an order for valuation of the partnership business. The applicant nominated an accountant for the valuation exercise in 2021 but the respondents neither responded nor provided required information. The applicant then applied to court in 2023 for recognition and enforcement of the awards under sections 34, 35(1), and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Issues
- Whether the court has power and jurisdiction to recognize and enforce the arbitral awards.
- Whether the awards are unenforceable on account of alleged illegality in the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- The Interim Award dated 8th November 2016 is hereby recognized.
- The Final Arbitral Award in CAD ARB No. 11 of 2016 dated 30th June 2017 is hereby recognized.
- A decree is hereby issued for the enforcement of the Interim and Final Arbitral Awards.
- Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.34
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.35(1)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.35(2)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.36
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.12(3)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.13
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.13(2)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.34(3)
- Arbitration Rules Rule 13
Cases cited (4)
- Alios Alliance Ltd v NSJ Investments Ltd and Another (HCMA No. 691 of 2021)
- TMA Architects and Another v Prome Consultants Ltd (HCMC No. 0080 of 2021)
- Great Lakes Energy Co Ltd v MSS XSABO Power Ltd and 4 Others (Arbitration Causes No. 0002 and 0005 of 2023 (consolidated))
- Roko Construction Ltd v Mohammed Hamid (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2011)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.