Vanesh Investment Company Ltd v China Railways No. 10 Engineer Group Company Ltd (Civil Appeal E1261 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9376 (KLR) (Civ) (1 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9376 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL CIVIL APPEAL E1261 OF 2025 LP KASSAN, J JULY 1, 2026 BETWEEN VANESH INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED ................................ APPELLANT AND CHINA RAILWAYS NO. 10 ENGINEER GROUP COMPANY LIMITED ............................................................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. This appeal emanates from the lower Court’s decision of striking out a claim for two key reasons: - first is because the Court had no monetary jurisdiction and secondly because there was an arbitration clause. The lower Court referred the matter to arbitration. The Appellant was aggrieved by this reference for the main basis that the contract had partly been performed and that its claim was merely for the balance. 2. At this juncture, this Court is called upon to determine if the matter was rightly referred to arbitration by simply interpreting the clause in the agreement. 3. Sub clause 2 on termination of a contract states “ Any dispute arising from performance of this contract shall be first solved by negotiation, if negotiation fails then such dispute shall be referred to an arbitrator of Kenya tribunal.” 4. The above provision uses the mandatory word of “shall” and gives no room for any alternative. The word “any dispute” has been used to mean all disputes. The Appellant has no room to choose the dispute for reference to an arbitrator or to Court. The issue at hand is performance of the contract which is well captured by the clause above. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9376/eng@2026-07-01 1
page 1 of 2
5. The Courts have always respected the parties’ choice for an arbitrator because it is enshrined in the constitution. The explanation by the appellant that the contract was performed in full and so he was right to seek redress in Court fails. Payment of any balance is part of “performance “because the act of payment is actually a performance envisaged by the arbitration clause and cannot be dismembered as it is the last obligation of the parties. 6. There are no exceptional circumstances for me to reverse the lower Court’s decision finding as the arbitral clause is not ambiguous and the dispute is well within the clause. There is no prove of fraud or prove that the arbitrator is likely to fail to implement it. 7. The onset of the above is that the appeal is dismissed with costs DATED, DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AND SIGNED ON THIS 1ST DAY OF JULY 2026. HON L P KASSAN JUDGE In the presence of; No appearance for Appellant Mafumbo for the Respondent Leonard – Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9376/eng@2026-07-01 2
page 2 of 2