Northstream Limited v Registered Trustees of the Comboni Sisters (Land Case (Originating Summons) E063 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8379 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to remove an arbitrator because the challenge was filed late, but preserved the disputed property pending arbitration.
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 Court should uphold the challenge lodged and remove Nyambura Musyimi as the sole arbitrator in the dispute between the parties herein.
- 2.Whether the Applicant has made a case for annulment of arbitral proceedings presided over by Nyambura Musyimi and quash her Ruling dated 24th June 2024.
- 3.Whether the Respondent met the threshold for issuance of status quo orders pending arbitration proceedings?
Key legal issues
#Timeliness of an application under Section 14(3) of the Arbitration Act challenging an arbitrator's rejection of a recusal challenge
The Applicant's Originating Summons filed on 8th October 2024 was time-barred, having been filed more than thirty days after the Arbitrator's decision of the challenge was communicated
Section 14(3) requires an application to the High Court within thirty days of being notified of the decision rejecting the challenge. Courts have interpreted notice of decision by reference to when the tribunal notifies parties that the decision/award is ready for collection. The Arbitrator notified the parties on 8th July 2024, so the deadline was 7th August 2024; the summons filed 8th October 2024 was out of time.
Whether the sole arbitrator's role at Daystar University gave rise to a real possibility of bias
No bias was established; the mere holding of a position on a Spiritual Nurture Committee, without more, does not disqualify an arbitrator under the objective fair-minded observer test
The Applicant alleged bias solely from the arbitrator's chairmanship of the Human Resources and Spiritual Nurture Committee at Daystar University, combined with claims of religious discrimination by the Respondent. The court found no facts showing actual or apparent bias during the proceedings, noted the dispute is governed by the Lease contract, and observed the arbitrator's decision on the recusal application was not shown to be marred by suspicion.
Whether interim measures/status quo orders under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act were warranted
Partially granted - status quo of existing buildings and structures on the suit property to be maintained pending arbitration
The court applied the Safaricom v Ocean View essentials: there is an arbitration agreement and the subject matter requires preservation. A prior ruling of 2nd April 2025 had granted conditional interim orders for one year, but the Applicant had not deposited the full rent as directed. The site visit showed no activity on the property. The court held the subject matter should be preserved as is to enable conclusion of the arbitration.
Legal principles established
#- An application under Section 14(3) of the Arbitration Act to determine a challenge to an arbitrator must be filed within thirty days of notification of the decision rejecting the challenge; time computed from the tribunal's notice that its decision is ready for collection.
- The test for bias is objective - that of a fair-minded and informed observer.
- Essentials for interim measures of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Pending hearing and determination of the Arbitration Dispute between the parties, the obtaining status quo be maintained concerning the status of the existing buildings, structures, facilities and developments on Land Parcel No. Nairobi/Block 22/313 (formerly known as L.R. No. 4857/22, Nairobi).
- 2.The parties are directed to adhere to the Orders of this Court issued on the 2nd April, 2025.
- 3.Costs in the cause.
- 4.The Applicant's Originating Summons dated 7th October 2024 challenging the arbitrator and seeking annulment of the arbitral proceedings was declined/dismissed.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 14(3) and 7 of the Arbitration Act (application to the High Court on challenge to an arbitrator and interim measures of protection pending arbitration)
Relief refused
#Upholding the Applicant's challenge and removal of Nyambura Musyimi as sole arbitrator
Application filed outside the 30-day period in Section 14(3) of the Arbitration Act and no bias demonstrated
Annulment of the arbitral proceedings and quashing of the Arbitrator's Ruling dated 24th June 2024
No element of bias established against the arbitrator
Applicant's opposition to the Respondent's Chamber Summons (status quo orders)
Subject matter of the arbitration needed to be preserved pending arbitral proceedings
Costs
Costs in the cause
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.
Pending hearing and determination of the Arbitration Dispute between the parties, the obtaining status quo be maintained concerning the status of the existing buildings, structures, facilities and developments on Land Parcel No. Nairobi/Block 22/313 (formerly known as L.R. No. 4857/22, Nairobi).
I find that Applicant’s application seeking to challenge the Arbitrator’s decision of 24th June 2024 is time barred by dint of Section 14 (3) of the Arbitration Act.
In my view since the Applicant and Respondent’s relationship including obligations are governed by terms of the Lease Agreement which was the contract, I do not see how the issue of religion can be invoked.
The parties are directed to adhere to the Orders of this Court issued on the 2nd April, 2025.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram lists the parties' names with minor inconsistency in capitalisation ('NorthStream Limited' vs 'North stream Limited') and the judgment appears to refer to Susan Murugi Ng'ang'a as 'the Respondent' when describing an order restraining eviction of the Applicant, an apparent role reversal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Northstream Limited v Registered Trustees of the Comboni Sisters (Land Case (Originating Summons) E063 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8379/eng@2025-12-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.