Kenyatta International Convention Centre v Greenstar Systems Limited

The Court framed timeliness as a threshold issue. Rule 39(b) requires a leave application within 14 days of the decision, and section 39(4) requires the appeal itself within 60 days of the notice of appeal. The applicant brought the motion nine months late, blaming erstwhile advocates. Following Anne Mumbi Hinga and Sewe J.'s reasoning, the Arbitration Act makes no provision for extension of time and procedural rules cannot override the Act. Delay therefore defeated the discretion, and the motion was a non-starter.

The arbitrator had found, unchallenged, that the applicant itself breached procurement law, rendering the tender illegal. The applicant sought to set up its own malfeasance to defeat the respondent's claim. The arbitrator had properly applied the doctrines of unjust enrichment and restitution to restore the blameless respondent to its pre-contract position. The Court held the arbitrator was entitled to that decision, and that merely paying a large sum does not of itself raise a point of law of general importance.

The Court reaffirmed that parties choosing arbitration subject themselves to its finality, with courts taking a back seat except in the specific instances stipulated by the Arbitration Act. Since the parties had not agreed to a right of appeal, section 39(3)(a) did not apply, and only the narrow leave window in section 39(3)(b) with Rule 39(b) was available. The Court noted the pending Supreme Court appeal in Nyutu Agrovet but held its own decision remained binding absent contrary authority.