Mutahi v Kenya Universities and Colleges Placement Service & another (Miscellaneous Application E703 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 19247 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (18 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19247 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) COMMERCIAL AND TAX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E703 OF 2025 F GIKONYO, J DECEMBER 18, 2025 BETWEEN BENSON G MUTAHI .............................................................................. APPLICANT AND KENYA UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES PLACEMENT SERVICE .... 1ST RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL MERU NATIONAL POLYTECHNIC .................. 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before me is the Chamber Summons application dated 14.7.2025 expressed to be brought under section 36(1) & (3) and 37(2) and 41 of the Arbitration Act, Rules 4(1) and (2), 6, 8 and 9 of the Arbitration Rules, 1997 and other enabling provisions of t=law, in which the applicant is seeking for recognition, adoption and enforcement of the arbitral award made on 27th November, 2024 published by the sole Arbitrator Mutinda Mutuku (QS) as the judgment of the court. 2. The applicant also sought for costs of the application and those of the arbitral proceedings as well as for the enforcement thereof to be borne by the respondents. 3. The application is premised on the grounds set out in the motion as well as in the supporting affidavit sworn by Benson Gichohi Mutahi. 4. Primarily, the applicant stated that the final arbitral award herein was duly published on 27.11.2024 and is binding on the parties. Further, the time to apply for the award to be set aside under section 35 of the Arbitration Act has lapsed; and no application thereto has been made. There is also no ground for refusal of recognition and adoption of the award under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. 5. Accordingly, the applicant beseeched the court to allow the application. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19247/eng@2025-12-18 1
page 1 of 2
6. The application was not opposed. The respondent submitted that the do not oppose the award and that time to apply for the setting aside of the award had lapsed. They only asked the court to save it from costs for they did not waste any court time. 7. Mmmm Analysis and Determination 8. The issue at hand is: whether the award should be adopted and enforced as the order of the court. Costs of the award as well as the application shall be dealt with also. 9. There is no application to set aside the award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act. award complies with the requirements of section 36 of the Arbitration Act; and there are no grounds for refusing to adopt the award. 10. As for costs of the arbitration; this is part of the award. 11. I will not however order costs of the application given the respondent’s positive response to the award. I have always stated emphasized obedience in consensual processes such as arbitration as the preferred response to an award thereto rather than coercive execution. Which buttresses the sanctity of party autonomy and the choice made of the forum for dispute resolution. Obedience also upholds the dignity of the parties. Conclusion and orders 12. Accordingly, the award is binding upon the parties, it is adopted and shall be enforced as the judgment of the court. 13. Each party shall bear own costs of the application. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 18.12.25 -----------------F. GIKONYO M JUDGE In the presence of: Ndurumo for Applicant No appearance by AG CA KINYUA https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19247/eng@2025-12-18 2
page 2 of 2