Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2018] KEELC 2191 (KLR)

Mukuru Munge v Paul Mutisya Mutuku Kalulu [2018] KEELC 2191 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 July 2018
330 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cannot force a party into arbitration — you need both parties' written agreement before asking the court to refer your land dispute to an arbitrator.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi delivered by S. Okong'o, J, on the plaintiff's Chamber Summons application dated 5th February 2018. The plaintiff sought an order referring the dispute between him and the defendant to arbitration by the Chief of Lunga Lunga Viwandani Industrial Area, Nairobi, with liberty to return to the suit if the Chief did not resolve it. The court noted that in an earlier ruling of 28th April 2017 it had observed that the dispute should have been referred to the Chief of the area where the suit property is situated. However, the dispute was now properly before the court, and under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules a reference to arbitration can only be made by agreement of the parties. The defendant had not responded to the application and there was no evidence of his consent to arbitration, so the court held it had no power to force him to arbitrate. The court also considered, under Order 46 rule 20, whether to refer the matter to mediation by the Chief, but concluded that given the nature of the dispute and the parties' positions, mediation would not achieve much. The application was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The court observed that the plaintiff could still call the area Chief as a witness if his evidence would assist in determining the dispute. The ruling was delivered in open court on 19th July 2018.

Key legal issues

#
01

Compulsory reference to arbitration

Holding

The application for reference to arbitration failed because arbitration requires consent of both parties, which was absent

Reasoning

The plaintiff sought referral of the dispute to the area Chief as an arbitrator. Order 46 Rule 1 permits reference to arbitration only where the parties agree. The defendant did not respond to the application and there was no evidence of consent. Without consent, the court lacks power to force arbitration, so the application had to fail.

p. 2
02

Court-annexed mediation by the Chief

Holding

The court considered and declined to refer the matter to mediation by the Chief under Order 46 rule 20 as it would serve no purpose

Reasoning

Having found that compulsory arbitration was unavailable, the court considered its own powers under Order 46 rule 20 to refer the matter to mediation. It weighed the nature of the dispute and the parties' entrenched positions and concluded mediation would not achieve much, declining the reference.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may only refer a dispute to arbitration under Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules by agreement of the parties; it cannot compel a party to arbitrate

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 5th February, 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
  3. 3.Observation that the plaintiff may call the area Chief as a witness if his evidence would assist the court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 46 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 46 rule 20
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 46 Rules 1 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules (reference to arbitration and mediation)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mukuru Munge v Paul Mutisya Mutuku Kalulu [2018] KEELC 2191 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2191/eng@2018-07-19

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