Vio Tech Ltd v Upperhill Chambers Ltd & 1 other

The respondents argued there was no proper notice of appeal and the applicant had withdrawn the earlier notice. The Court held this contention was water under the bridge: the application concerns an intended appeal to the Supreme Court, for which a notice dated 8th November 2024 was allegedly filed and served. The validity of such notice falls to the Supreme Court, not this Court.

The Court reviewed the High Court ruling, its own ruling of 25th October 2024 and the Kenfit and Ezra Odondi Opar decisions and found no incoherence. Since the 1st respondent, who sought enforcement, was not awarded costs in the award, the claim that the award was incomplete for want of costs determination was unfounded.

The intended appeal targets the ruling declining to hear an appeal against the High Court's recognition of the arbitral award. Questions about enforceability of awards with reserved costs, section 36 of the Arbitration Act, and double enforcement were not addressed in that ruling and hence were not judicially determined in the courts below, contravening the Steyn vs Ruscone and Geo Chem principles.

Relying on Synergy Industrial Credit, Nyutu Agrovet, Kampala International University and Njihia vs Kimani, the Court held that discretionary rulings of the Court of Appeal are not appealable to the Supreme Court absent a substantive appeal, and the applicant failed to show uncertainty in the law emanating from the impugned ruling.