Cytonn Investments Management PLC v Njuguna (Civil Application E363 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1317 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused Cytonn permission to appeal a ruling enforcing a Kshs. 41 million arbitral award, confirming appeals from arbitration decisions are extremely rare.
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 applicant has met the threshold for grant of leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court under section 35 of the Arbitration Act
- 2.Whether the applicant is entitled to an order under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Threshold for leave to appeal from a High Court decision under section 35 of the Arbitration Act
Leave was refused because the applicant's grievances fell within the ordinary section 35/37 framework and did not disclose the grave, manifestly wrong decision that closes the door of justice, as required by Nyutu Agrovet and Synergy.
The court applied the Supreme Court's governing pronouncements in Nyutu Agrovet, Synergy and Geo Chem, which confine appeals from section 35 decisions to cases where the High Court stepped outside the statutory grounds and occasioned grave injustice. The applicant's complaints - erroneous computation of the 90-day timeline, failure to consider its section 37 replying affidavit, absence of a valid arbitration agreement, bias and public policy - did not amount to such exceptional circumstances. Having declined leave, the court found it unnecessary to consider the rule 5(2)(b) merits question.
Legal principles established
#- No appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court under section 35 of the Arbitration Act, except in the narrow circumstances set by the Supreme Court in the Nyutu Agrovet and Synergy cases, where the High Court stepped outside the grounds in section 35 and made a decision so grave as to close the door of justice
- Arguments alleging errors in computation of the 90-day period under section 35(3) and failure to consider section 37 objections do not meet the exceptional threshold for leave to appeal from a section 35 decision
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15th July 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.Leave to appeal against the ruling of the High Court is declined
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Misc Arb No. 030 of 2023 (consolidated with Misc Arb No. E018 of 2023)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) and rules 41, 44 and 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 - application for leave to appeal and stay of execution
Relief refused
#Leave to appeal against the ruling of the High Court
The arguments raised did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or grave injustice meeting the Nyutu Agrovet and Synergy threshold
Stay of execution of the High Court ruling pending intended appeal
Not considered, as leave to appeal was refused and the rule 5(2)(b) question did not arise
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
This circumscribed and narrow jurisdiction should also be so sparingly exercised that only in the clearest of cases should the Court of Appeal assume jurisdiction.
we accordingly find that the application dated 15th July 2024 is without merit, and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
we find that the applicant has not satisfied this court that it is deserving of leave to appeal, and we decline to grant leave.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the High Court as having struck out the section 35 application for being out of time, and separately allowed enforcement under section 36; the ruling thus contained two outcomes, though the applicant challenged the ruling as a whole
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cytonn Investments Management PLC v Njuguna (Civil Application E363 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 15th July 2024 (Civil Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1317/eng@2025-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.