Kiama v Vaal Real Estate Limited & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E115 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8449 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to stop execution of a decree from an adopted arbitral award, confirming that Kenyan courts expect arbitration disputes to end.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there should be stay of execution of the Decree herein pending determination of the Milimani Constitutional Petition No. E368 of 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether execution of the decree should be stayed pending determination of a constitutional petition challenging the arbitral award
Stay refused; no stay was in place and the decree holder was entitled to execute
The award had been adopted as a judgment on 30th October 2024 after a merit hearing. The judgment debtors' attempt to challenge the award's legality in the Court of Appeal had been dismissed with costs on 30th May 2025. No stay was in force barring execution. The pending constitutional petition did not justify staying execution, and the deposit of the decretal sum into a joint escrow account did not displace the finality of arbitration proceedings.
Whether the execution proceedings contravened section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act by proceeding before ascertainment of costs
No contravention; the decree emanates from a properly adopted award and arbitration costs were not part of the decree
The court associated itself with Bamburi Portland Cement on the requirement of leave for execution before taxation, but held the section inapplicable because the decree derived from an adopted award. The decree holder had admitted costs of the arbitration were not included since the taxing officer struck out his bill of costs as time barred, so no non-decreed costs of that character were being executed against the judgment debtors.
Whether the application offended the doctrine of res judicata and the finality of arbitration
It did; the issues had been dealt with in the arbitration and in a dismissed Court of Appeal application
The judgment debtors had already challenged the award's legality in ELC Misc. E003 of 2024, which was dismissed with costs, and had sought leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal, which was also dismissed with costs. Re-litigating the same issues through a stay application offended res judicata and the public policy finality of arbitration underscored in the authorities cited.
Legal principles established
#- A decree emanating from a properly adopted arbitral award can be executed absent a stay; execution of such a decree does not require leave under section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act
- Leave to execute before taxation under section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act must be obtained from the High Court, informally at judgment or by notice of motion
- Finality of arbitration is a matter of public policy limiting the court's intervention in arbitral awards
Court orders
#- 1.The Judgment Debtors'/Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 18th June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Decree Holder/Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the decree in Nairobi ELC Misc. Application No. E115 of 2024 pending determination of Milimani Constitutional Petition No. E368 of 2025
No stay barring execution was in place, the decree emanates from a properly adopted arbitral award, and finality of arbitration demands an end to litigation
Setting aside the execution application for Kshs. 8,816,158, the warrants of execution and proclamation dated 17th June 2025
The court found execution lawful and not in contravention of section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act
Order that the Decree Holder meet auctioneer's charges and compensation for alleged illegal execution
Execution was held to be valid; the application was found unmerited
Stay of execution of the decree pending determination of costs by the arbitral tribunal
Finality of arbitration proceedings precludes reopening the costs question; the taxing officer had struck out the Bill of Costs and the tribunal and the court are functus officio on costs
Costs
The Notice of Motion application dated 18th June 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Decree Holder/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.
In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will dismiss it with costs.
the Applicants cannot bar the Respondent from executing the Decree herein
I do not find that the execution contravenes section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act since the Decree emanates from a properly adopted Award
even though the decretal sum was deposited in a joint interest earning account, there has to be finality of arbitration proceedings
Issues in the judgment
#Recurring typographical errors rendering 'offends' as 'ofiends' and 'sufficient' as 'suficient' throughout the judgment
Parties are inconsistently named across the judgment (William K Kiama / William Kanya Kiama / William Kanyua Kiama)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiama v Vaal Real Estate Limited & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E115 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8449 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi ELC Misc. Application No. E115 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8449/eng@2025-12-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.