Angar v Nairobi Academy (Holdings) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E210 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3054 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed a coach's Ksh 1.87 million arbitration award and converted it into an enforceable court judgment with interest.
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 final arbitral award dated 31st October, 2022 should be recognized and adopted as a judgment of the court
- 2.Whether the Applicant met the preconditions for enforcement under section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act
- 3.Whether any grounds under section 37 of the Arbitration Act exist to refuse recognition and enforcement of the award
Key legal issues
#Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award under section 36 of the Arbitration Act
The award is recognized and adopted as a decree of the court; the preconditions in section 36(3) were met and no section 37 grounds were demonstrated.
The court noted the setting-aside application in ELRC Misc. Application E004 of 2023 was dismissed on 15th June, 2023, with no appeal preferred. The Applicant furnished certified copies of the award and arbitration agreement, satisfying section 36(3). The onus shifted to the Respondent to establish section 37 grounds for refusal, which it failed to do. The court emphasized it is not sitting as an appeal court over the arbitrator.
Limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitral awards
Courts may intervene in arbitral awards only in situations specifically set out in the Arbitration Act or as agreed by the parties.
Relying on Omar v Muigai, which quoted Anne Mumbi Hinga v Victoria Njoki Gathara, the court reiterated the minimalist approach to judicial intervention in arbitration. Since the Respondent's set-aside application had been dismissed and no appeal was preferred, the Applicant could not be made to wait indefinitely for the fruits of the arbitration.
Legal principles established
#- A domestic arbitral award shall be recognized as binding and enforced upon application, and once an application to set aside the award has been dismissed and no appeal preferred, the award must be enforced unless grounds under section 37 are shown.
- The party applying for enforcement must furnish the original or certified copies of the arbitral award and arbitration agreement; once this is done, the onus shifts to the resisting party to show grounds under section 37.
Court orders
#- 1.The final arbitral award of 31st October, 2022 for ksh 1,866,455.80/= is recognized and adopted as a decree of the court and is enforceable as such
- 2.Costs and interest at court rates are awarded to the Applicant until payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 36 of the Arbitration Act; Rules 4(1), 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Rules, 1997; Sections 12 & 20 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Cap. 234B)
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 conclusion the Claimant’s Application dated 14th December, 2022 is found merited and the court recognizes and adopts the Arbitral Final award of 31st October, 2022 at ksh 1,866,455.80/= as decree of the court and enforceable as a decree of this court. Costs and interest at court rates are awarded to the Applicant until payment in full.
The Applicant has attached a certified copy of the final award and agreement. In the instant case, I find that the applicant has met the preconditions for the enforcement of the award. The onus therefore shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate why the award should not be adopted.
This court is also not sitting as an appeal court. No Appeal has been preferred since its application for setting aside the award was dismissed on 15th June,2023. The Applicant cannot wait indefinitely to enjoy the fruits of the arbitration.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the termination of the Applicant's services - the pleadings record summary dismissal by letter dated 13/02/2017, but the determination states March, 2018.
The judgment gives inconsistent dates for delivery/publication of the arbitral award - 30/10/2022, 31/10/2022 and '312/10/2022'.
The judgment inconsistently dates the Respondent's set-aside application - 'dated 12th January,2023' versus 'moved the court on 9th January,2023'.
Typographical error 'ofiend' presumably meaning 'offends'.
The name of the Respondent is not stated anywhere in the judgment; it is referred to only as 'the Respondent'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Angar v Nairobi Academy (Holdings) Limited (Miscellaneous Application E210 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 3054 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Chamber Summons Application dated 14th December, 2022 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3054/eng@2023-11-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.