Joseph W. Karanja & another v Geoffrey Ngari Kuira [2006] KECA 181 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that arbitration procedures can be changed by agreement at preliminary meetings, and a court may order a case reargued when key evidence was hidden.
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 superior court properly exercised its discretion in granting review of the First Ruling and ordering that the original Notice of Motion dated 9th June 1999 be heard afresh, rather than varying its earlier order so as to resuscitate the arbitral award
Key legal issues
#Whether the requirement in clause 8.7 of the arbitration agreement that the tribunal keep a verbatim record could be varied by agreement at a preliminary meeting without formal amendment of the agreement
The Court held it could; procedural matters are routinely dealt with at preliminary meetings and need not be incorporated by formal amendment, consistent with section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act 1995.
The Court reasoned that matters of procedure are commonly settled at preliminary meetings of arbitrators, and a Minute recording such agreement suffices. Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act 1995 entitles parties to agree on procedure, so the non-requirement of a full transcript could be so agreed. The respondent's argument that only a formal amendment of clause 8.7 would suffice was therefore not conclusive.
Whether the superior court properly exercised its discretion in granting review on the ground of non-disclosure of the Minute and in ordering the original application to be heard afresh rather than varying its order
Yes. The non-disclosure of the Minute was significant because the First Ruling had been founded on the absence of any record; the Judge was entitled to order the application reargued.
The Court found that what led the Judge to grant review was the non-disclosure of the Minute, which was significant because his original decision rested on the absence of a record. Exercising review discretion, he could properly direct that the original application be reargued in light of the new information. The resulting delay, though unfortunate and prolonged by the Judge's elevation to the Court of Appeal, did not render the exercise of discretion wrong.
Legal principles established
#- Procedural matters in arbitration may validly be agreed at preliminary meetings of the arbitrators without formal amendment of the arbitration agreement
- Under section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act 1995 the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in the conduct of the proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal be dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Courts
- H.C. Misc. Application No. 65 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the High Court under the Civil Procedure Act (appeal against an interlocutory ruling; no specific constitutional provision invoked in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the Second Ruling and resuscitation of the arbitral award dated 4th January 1999
The Judge was right in exercising his discretion to order the original application reargued in light of the previously undisclosed Minute; any resulting delay was unfortunate but not a ground for interference
Costs
The appeal be dismissed with costs (the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal; note that the Second Ruling below had ordered each party to bear its own costs of the review application).
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.
We further consider that the Judge was right in exercising his discretion and ruling that in the circumstances it was necessary for the original application to be reargued before the court in the light of the new information which had not been available to him at the previous hearing.
Matters of procedure such as this are often dealt with by agreement at preliminary meetings of the Arbitrators and we do not consider that every such matter necessarily needs to be incorporated in a formal amendment to the Arbitration agreement.
It will be clear from the above that we are for the dismissal of the appeal. We accordingly order that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The header and cause title date the High Court decision as 15th February 2002, while the opening paragraph of the judgment refers to the Second Ruling as delivered on 15th February 2000 - an internal inconsistency in dates
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (5)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Bhachu Industries Limited v Ngui (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E225 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3725 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 3725 (KLR)19 Nov 2025
- Bhachu Industries Ltd v Kyendi (Appeal E363 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2654 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2654 (KLR)26 Sept 2025
- Bhachu Industries Limited v Kula (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E314 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1732 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1732 (KLR)12 Jun 2025
- Nispan Construction Company Limited v Imanuel Mukera Temesi [2020] KEELRC 1835 (KLR)[2020] KEELRC 1835 (KLR)24 Jan 2020
- Nyutu Agrovet Limited v Airtel Network Kenya Limited [2016] KECA 444 (KLR)[2016] KECA 444 (KLR)17 Jun 2016
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph W. Karanja & another v Geoffrey Ngari Kuira [2006] KECA 181 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2006). Civil Appeal 130 of 2002. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2006/181/eng@2006-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.