Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal 161 of 2003· [2007] KECA 498 (KLR)

Benjamin Kiiru Wanjau v Samuel Nelson Mwangi Wanjau Jones Gibson Mwangi Kamau

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 February 2007
1,809 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that once judgment is entered on a tribunal award, you cannot appeal or review it unless the decree exceeds or departs from the award.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nyeri against a ruling of Juma, J of the High Court delivered on 12th July 1999 dismissing the appellant's application for review in a family land dispute. The respondents had sued for declarations that two land parcels were held in trust for them, and the High Court (Osiemo, J) referred the dispute to the Muranga District Land Disputes Tribunal on 21st March 1996 when the appellant was represented by counsel. The Tribunal delivered its award; the appellant's application to set it aside was dismissed on 4th June 1997, and judgment was entered in terms of the award on 9th July 1997, after which the land was subdivided and new titles issued. The appellant then sought review on grounds including lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and error apparent on the face of the record, which Juma, J dismissed, holding that under Order XLV rule 17(2) no appeal lay from a decree entered in terms of an award except where the decree exceeded or departed from the award. The appellant advanced six grounds of appeal, chiefly attacking the referral to the Tribunal and its jurisdiction over title to land. The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment, held that the jurisdiction issue did not arise because the Tribunal members acted as arbitrators and the appellant was represented and participated in the proceedings; that the superior court acted within its powers in referring the matter; and that no appeal lay from a decree entered in terms of the award absent excess or departure. The Court affirmed the ruling of the High Court and dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondents, observing that the dispute had to come to an end.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal over the referred dispute

Holding

The Court held that the jurisdiction question did not arise because the Tribunal members were picked as arbitrators and the appellant, being represented, participated in the arbitration; the superior court acted within its powers in making the referral.

Reasoning

The record showed the appellant was represented by counsel on 21st March 1996 when the dispute was referred, and he later participated in the arbitration and sought to set aside the award. The Court reasoned that the Tribunal members were in effect chosen as arbitrators rather than exercising statutory jurisdiction, so the referral could not be attacked for want of the Tribunal's statutory mandate.

p. 4
02

Bar on appeal from a decree entered in terms of an award

Holding

Order XLV rule 17(2) bars appeal from a decree entered in terms of an award except where the decree is in excess of or not in accordance with the award; the appellant showed neither, so the review application was properly dismissed.

Reasoning

Judgment had been entered in terms of the filed award, the decree had been executed (the land subdivided and new titles issued), and the appellant's application to set aside the award had been dismissed. Nothing demonstrated that the decree exceeded or departed from the award, leaving the High Court without power to review and this Court without an arguable appeal.

p. 4
03

Form of memorandum of appeal

Holding

The Court noted, for guidance only, that the grounds of appeal did not conform with rule 84(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules requiring concise, distinct heads without argument or narrative.

Reasoning

The Court reproduced rule 84(1) and observed that the lengthy, argumentative grounds as drafted failed the requirement that a memorandum of appeal set out concisely, under distinct heads, the points alleged to have been wrongly decided. However, the Court did not strike out the appeal on this basis and proceeded to determine it on the merits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where judgment has been entered in terms of an arbitral or tribunal award, no appeal lies from the resulting decree except in so far as the decree is in excess of or not in accordance with the award.
  • A party who was represented by counsel when a matter was referred to arbitration and who took part in the arbitration proceedings cannot later complain of the referral; where the tribunal members act as arbitrators chosen for the parties, the question of the tribunal's statutory jurisdiction does not arise.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nyeri
H.C.C.C. No. 5 of 1995
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules from the High Court ruling dismissing the appellant's application for review

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Benjamin Kiiru Wanjau v Samuel Nelson Mwangi Wanjau Jones Gibson Mwangi Kamau", Case Analysis (2007). Civil Appeal 161 of 2003. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/498/eng@2007-02-09

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.