KAMAU KIBUTHA vs MACHARIA KIBUTHA [1984] KECA 96 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to overturn an arbitration award, confirming courts rarely interfere when parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned judge erred in failing to exercise the court's inherent powers under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act in addition to Order 45 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.Whether the alleged irregularities in the arbitration proceedings (failure to record all evidence, inadequate hearing, matters outside the terms of reference, discrepancies) amounted to misconduct justifying setting aside the award
Key legal issues
#Whether inherent jurisdiction under section 3A can be invoked alongside or instead of the arbitration rules
No - the arbitration rules contain ample specific remedies (modify/correct, remit, set aside) so there are no special circumstances for section 3A
The court distinguished Rawal v The Mombasa Hardware Ltd, where Order 16 Rule 6 left a party without notice remediless. Under the arbitration rules, a party has protections: Rule 13 (modify or correct), Rule 14 (remit), Rule 15 (set aside for corruption or misconduct). Saldanha v Bhailal & Co confirms that inherent jurisdiction cannot override rules where another remedy exists.
Whether the arbitration proceedings amounted to misconduct under Order 45 Rule 15(1)(a)
The alleged irregularities did not amount to misconduct; both sides were heard, questioned each other, called witnesses, and the elders appointed by the appellant subscribed to the award
Each party had a full opportunity to state his case, question the opponent and call witnesses. The panel, comprising two elders per side and the District Officer as umpire, gave brief written reasons and correctly treated the land as 30.6 acres. Informalities, such as no submissions after close of evidence, are not misconduct; the appellant's own nominees participated in and signed the award.
Legal principles established
#- The court's inherent powers under section 3A are not available where the Civil Procedure Rules already provide specific remedies protecting a party complaining of an arbitration award
- Courts will be slow to interfere with an arbitration award where the parties have chosen arbitration as their method of dispute resolution
- Arbitration procedure need not be in technical conformity with court procedure to be valid
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the lead judgment dismissing the appeal against refusal to set aside an arbitration award.
In these circumstances, I am personally left in no doubt that the arbitration proceedings, if not in literal compliance with court procedure, were fairly conductedp. 4
Agreed with the judgment of Hancox, JA.
I agree with the judgment of Hancox, JA and as Chesoni, Ag JA does too, the orders proposed in it now become the orders of the Court.p. 4
Agreed with Hancox, JA; found no misconduct under Order XLV Rule 15(1)(a).
There were no irregularities in the proceedings of arbitration and if there were any they did not amount to misconduct under Order XLV Rule 15(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rulesp. 5
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Civil Case No 2599 of 1975
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Aganyanya, J)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the arbitration award of 5th July 1982
No misconduct established; proceedings were fairly conducted
Invocation of the court's inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
The arbitration rules provide ample specific remedies; no special circumstances requiring section 3A
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs (costs to the respondent)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In these circumstances, I am personally left in no doubt that the arbitration proceedings, if not in literal compliance with court procedure, were fairly conducted and that the result, if not to the liking of the appellant, cannot be described as amounting to misconduct. In may judgment, the learned judge was correct in exercising his discretion not to set aside the award of the arbitrators, and I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
It cannot therefore, in my opinion be said that there exist, in this case, special circumstances requiring the application of the court’s inherent powers under section 3A.
I agree with the judgment of Hancox, JA and as Chesoni, Ag JA does too, the orders proposed in it now become the orders of the Court.
Issues in the judgment
#Coram inconsistency: the first coram lists Chesoni, Ag JA; the second coram lists Nyarangi, Ag JA, yet the judgment contains a judgment of Chesoni, Ag JA and none of Nyarangi
Typographical error in lead judgment ('In may judgment' for 'In my judgment')
Corrupted passage in the quote from Saldanha v Bhailal & Co ('I do not think xxxxxxxxxxx in the case of...')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "KAMAU KIBUTHA vs MACHARIA KIBUTHA [1984] KECA 96 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1984). Civil Appeal No 54 of 1983. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1984/96/eng@1984-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.