Geothermal Development Company Limited v Lantech (Africa) Limited (Civil Appeal E637 of 2024) [2025] KECA 2045 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the three-month clock to challenge an arbitration award starts when you're told the award is ready for collection—not when you physically collect it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Meaning of 'delivered/received' under sections 32(5) and 35(3) of the Arbitration Act
Delivery occurs when the tribunal makes the signed award available for collection and notifies the parties; physical receipt is unnecessary
The Court surveyed a long line of Kenyan decisions holding that notification that the signed award is ready for collection constitutes sufficient delivery. The rationale is expedition and finality in arbitration. Once notified, parties must collect the award after settling fees; the arbitrator has no obligation to send it before his fees are settled, and failure to collect does not postpone delivery or the running of time.
Whether the appellant's setting-aside application was time-barred
It was; time ran from 12th November 2019 and expired on 11th February 2020, so the 12th June 2020 application was out of time
The arbitrator notified the parties on 12th November 2019 that the award was published and ready for collection upon payment of fees. It was not in dispute that this notification started time running. The appellant ought to have filed by 11th February 2020. The trial Judge correctly upheld the preliminary objection and correctly found the court bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the application.
Effect of a section 34 correction request on the section 35(3) limitation period
A section 34 request only pauses/resets time if lodged within the period; the respondent's correction application was out of time and inconsequential
The Court held that a request for correction or interpretation of an award pauses and resets the limitation period only when properly lodged within time. In this case the three months had already lapsed before the section 34 application was filed, so it was inconsequential for the statutory timelines and could not revive the appellant's setting-aside application.
Whether the High Court should have separately considered section 37 grounds in the enforcement application
Not reached; having found the setting-aside application out of time, the court had no jurisdiction and could not consider the merits or the section 37 arguments
The appellant argued that even after the striking out of its section 35 application, its public policy and excess-of-jurisdiction concerns should have been weighed against section 37 in the enforcement application. The Court declined, holding that once the court was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the out-of-time application, it could not consider the merits of the grounds relied upon.
Legal principles established
#- For purposes of section 35(3) of the Arbitration Act, an award is 'received' when the arbitral tribunal notifies the parties that the signed award is ready for collection, not upon physical collection; the three-month period runs from that notification
- The three-month time limit in section 35(3) is absolute and non-extendable; courts lack jurisdiction to enlarge it once lapsed
- A party remains responsible for collecting the award after settling the arbitrator's fees; failure to collect does not postpone delivery or the running of time
- A section 34 request for correction or interpretation only pauses or resets the section 35(3) time limit if properly lodged within time
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court
- HCCOMM E776 of 2020 as consolidated with High Court Misc. Application No. E779 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Rules (rule 31(1)(a) of the Rules of this Court); appeal against a ruling of the High Court on setting aside and enforcement of an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geothermal Development Company Limited v Lantech (Africa) Limited (Civil Appeal E637 of 2024) [2025] KECA 2045 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2045/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.