The High Court has reaffirmed that judicial intervention in arbitration is highly restricted. The Court’s role is confined to examining the procedure followed by the arbitrator in reaching the contested award rather than reassessing the evidence or re-evaluating the arbitrator's decision.
Facts
In this case, a dispute arose regarding the accuracy of the record of proceedings in arbitration. The Applicant alleged that the Arbitrator:
📍Omitted crucial cross-examination evidence that would have favored the Applicant.
📍Relied on an incomplete record despite multiple objections.
📍Acted with bias or partiality by failing to correct the record before delivering the final award.
The Respondent countered that:
📍The Arbitrator issued a revised record after both parties raised concerns.
📍The Applicant failed to file submissions within the set timelines.
📍There was no proven bias or fraud on the Arbitrator’s part.
High Court has found that:
The Arbitrator’s reliance on the parties to reconstitute the record of proceedings instead of exercising independent control led to perceptions of bias.
Delivering an award based on a contested record undermines fairness and procedural justice.
While the Court does not re-evaluate evidence, it has to ensure that arbitration proceedings adhere to the principles of fairness and due process.
The Court further held that its jurisdiction in arbitration matters is confined to procedural review and not to reassessing the arbitrator’s conclusions on merits. as observed in Simbamanyo Estates Ltd v. Seyani Brothers Company (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 555 of 2022).
Finality of Arbitration
Citing the precedent in Seyani Brothers & Co. Ltd v. Cassia Ltd (HCCA No. 128 of 2011), the Court emphasized that setting aside an arbitral award is not equivalent to an appeal. The award remains final unless it is proven to have been procured in violation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA).
Judicial Support for Arbitration Awards
Referring to the precedent in NIC v. ARCONSULTS ARCHITECTS (1984) 1 KALR at 112, the Court ruled that arbitration awards should be upheld unless they violate fundamental legal principles. Courts should not meticulously scrutinize arbitration decisions to find faults but should read them in a reasonable and commercial manner.
Key Takeaways
Courts will not interfere with arbitration awards unless procedural irregularities amounting to a miscarriage of justice are proven.
An arbitrator must ensure the record of proceedings is accurate and complete to avoid allegations of partiality or bias.
Parties to arbitration should be diligent in raising procedural objections early and within the prescribed timelines.
This decision reinforces the principle that arbitration is a binding and final dispute resolution mechanism, subject only to limited judicial review under the ACA.
Read the full case below
.jpg)
Comments