Connect with us

News & Analysis

The Growth and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration in Global Economy

Published

on

By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert from Kenya), Winner of Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021, ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and CIArb (Kenya) Lifetime Achievement Award 2021*

Over the past century, international arbitration has grown to become an autonomous legal order. It has been growing in its importance especially in settling international disputes within the international commercial circles. Globalization has led to an influx of international contracts, and the resultant increased complex commercial disputes. These have been instrumental in the development of international arbitration as the preferred choice of businessmen for the settlement of their disputes. They have further led to a denationalization of arbitration, both procedurally and substantively, as well as to a convergence of national legislation and institutional rules, based on a consensus on a greater liberalization of the process.

It has also been documented that the forces of globalization have also opened the door to the application by arbitral tribunals of general principles of international commercial law, common to all nations, and have contributed to the development of an international arbitration culture. There is, however, a group that feels that international arbitration has also come with its fair share of challenges. There is an increased concern over its judicialization, its time and cost efficiency and various ethical issues. Some feel that the mechanism of international arbitration has lost a stronghold in the global justice arena despite its continuous growth, and a consensus among scholars, businesses, and parties across the world is also mounting that the mechanism has completely lost feasibility.

It has been argued that generally, international arbitration has lost its complete efficiency and seen to be equating with litigation-based mechanisms, where parties’ ultimate goals are no longer realized and justified as the ends of international arbitration. It has been noted that even as the debate on the pros and cons of international arbitration ranges on, there are those who view it as a developed versus developing world issue. One author has rightly pointed out that the success story has been relatively regionally celebrated given that some regions like Africa, Latin America, as well as Asia, except the Asian Pacific, are still grappling with how to mainstream and take their share of global international arbitration growth. Despite these challenges, it is not in question that both developed and developing countries have actively promoted international arbitration practice as the best option for settling global disputes, and have manifestly substantiated their efforts by massively embracing pro-arbitration laws or statutes, as well as ratifying key international and regional arbitration legal instruments.

Most African countries, including Kenya, may be said to be at this stage where they are still trying to make their jurisdictions attractive to business community and international arbitration practitioners. In the last few years, the setting up of legal and institutional frameworks specifically meant to promote the growth and practice of international arbitration in Kenya has picked up. The Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration Act establishes the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA) whose functions include, inter alia, to promote, facilitate and encourage the conduct of international commercial arbitration in accordance with the Act; to administer domestic and international arbitrations as well as alternative dispute resolution techniques under its auspices; to ensure that arbitration is reserved as the dispute resolution process of choice; and, to develop rules encompassing conciliation and mediation processes.

NCIA is administered by a Board of Directors as provided for under the Act. There is also an Arbitral Court established under the Act, which court has exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction to hear matters that are referred to it under the Act. Its capacity to handle domestic and international arbitration requires to be constantly improved, and it can only be hoped that this potential will be exploited to its maximum in the years to come so as to prominently place Kenya on the global map of international arbitration. Despite the efforts by stakeholders in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and especially arbitration to invest in making Kenya a more receptive destination for international arbitration, the country still faces a number of challenges that have slowed down the progress. These include: real or perceived national courts interference; perception of corruption/ government interference; inadequate marketing of the country; inadequate capacity of existing institutions; and endless court proceedings, among others.

Kenya has enacted an Act of Parliament in an effort to nurture international commercial arbitration in the country. The object of the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration Act is to provide for the establishment of a regional centre for international commercial arbitration and the Arbitral Court and to provide for mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution among other purposes. The Act establishes a centre known as the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration. The functions of the Centre include to inter alia: promote, facilitate and encourage the conduct of international commercial arbitration in accordance with this Act; administer domestic and international arbitrations as well as alternative dispute resolution techniques under its auspices; and ensure that arbitration is reserved as the dispute resolution process of choice.

It is also noteworthy that the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration Act establishes a Court to be known as the Arbitral Court. The Court is to have exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes referred to it in accordance with this Act or any other written law and its decisions are to be final. These provisions are useful in guaranteeing confidentiality and non-interference ordinary national courts. Also significant is the provision that subject to any other rules of procedure by the Court, the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, with necessary modifications, shall apply to matters governed by the Act.

*This article is an extract from the Book: Settling Disputes Through Arbitration in Kenya, 4th Edition (Chapter Thirteen), Glenwood Publishers, Nairobi, 2022 by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD, Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021 (Nairobi Legal Awards), ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and ADR Lifetime Achievement Award 2021 (CIArb Kenya). Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a foremost Environmental Law and Natural Resources Lawyer and Scholar, Sustainable Development Advocate and Conflict Management Expert in Kenya. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Law and Dispute resolution at the University of Nairobi School of Law and The Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP). He has published numerous books and articles on Environmental Law, Environmental Justice Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Sustainable Development. Dr. Muigua is also a Chartered Arbitrator, an Accredited Mediator, the Africa Trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Managing Partner of Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates. Dr. Muigua is recognized among the top 5 leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts in Kenya by the Chambers Global Guide 2022.

References

Muigua, K., Settling Disputes Through Arbitration in Kenya, 4th Edition, Glenwood Publishers, Nairobi, 2022, p. 261 to 264.

News & Analysis

The Roles of the Three Parts of the Permanent Court of Arbitration

Published

on

By

H.E. Amb. Marcin Czepelak, the Fourteenth Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Brief History of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

Published

on

By

By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD, C.Arb, Current Member of Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Representing the Republic of Kenya.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a 124 Years Old Intergovernmental Organization currently with 122 contracting states. It was established at the turn of 20th Century during the first Hague Peace Conference held between 18th May and 29th July 1899. The conference was an initiative of then Russian Czar Nicholas II to discuss peace and disarmament and specifically with the object of “seeking the most effective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and, above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments.” The culmination of the conference was the adoption of a Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which dealt not only with arbitration but also with other methods of pacific settlement, such as good offices and mediation.

The aim of the conference was to “strengthen systems of international dispute resolution” especially international arbitration which in the last century had proven effective for the purpose with number of successful international arbitrations being concluded among Nations. The Alabama arbitration of 1871-1872 between the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) under the Treaty of Washington of 1871 culminating in the arbitral tribunal’s award that the UK pay the US compensation for breach of neutrality during American Civil War which it did had demonstrated the effectiveness of arbitration in settling of international disputes and piqued interest of many practitioners in it as a mode of dispute resolution during the latter years of the nineteenth century.

The Institut de Droit International adopted a code of procedure for arbitration in 1875 to answer the need for a general law of arbitration governing for countries and parties wishing to have recourse to international arbitration. The growth of arbitration as a mode of international dispute resolution formed the background of the 1899 conference and informed its most enduring achievement, namely, the establishment of the PCA as the first global mechanism for the settlement of disputes between states. Article 16 of the 1899 Convention recognized that “in questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions” arbitration is the “most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.”

In turn, the 1899 Convention provided for the creation of permanent machinery to enable the setting up of arbitral tribunals as necessary and to facilitate their work under the auspices of the institution it named as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). In particular, Article 20 of the 1899 Convention stated that “[w]ith the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the signatory Powers undertake to organize a Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention.” In effect, the Convention set up a permanent system of international arbitration and institutionalized the law and practice of arbitration in a definite and acceptable way.

As a result, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was established in 1900 and began operating in 1902. The PCA as established consisted of a panel of jurists designated by each country acceding to the Convention with each country being entitled to designate up to four from among whom the members of each arbitral tribunal might be chosen. In addition, the Convention created a permanent Bureau, located in The Hague, with functions similar to those of a court registry or secretariat. The 1899 Convention also laid down a set of rules of procedure to govern the conduct of arbitrations under the PCA framework.

The second Hague Peace Conference in 1907 saw a revision of the 1899 Convention and improvement of the rules governing arbitral proceedings. Today, the PCA has developed into a modern, multi-faceted arbitral institution perfectly situated to meet the evolving dispute resolution needs of the international community. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has also diversified its service offering alongside those contemplated by the Conventions. For instance, today the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration serves as a registry in important international arbitrations. In 1993, the Permanent Court of Arbitration adopted new “Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes between Two Parties of Which Only One Is a State” and, in 2001, “Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment”.

Reference

PCA Website: https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/introduction/history/ (accessed on 25th May 2023).

Continue Reading

News & Analysis

Former KCB Company Secretary Sues Over Unlawful Dismissal

Published

on

By

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania who has sued the Bank for Unlawful Dismissal

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania has sued the lender seeking reinstatement or be compensated for illegal sacking almost three years ago. Lawyer Kania was the KCB Group company secretary until restructuring of the lender in 2021 that saw some senior executives dropped.

Through the firm of Senior Counsel Wilfred Nderitu, Kamau wants the court to order KCB Group to unconditionally reinstate him to employment without altering any of the contractual terms until his retirement in December 2025.

In his court documents filed before Employment and Labour Relations Court, the career law banker seeks the court to declare the reorganization of the company structure a nullity and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution. He further wants the court to declare that the position of Group Company Secretary did not at any time cease to exist within the KCB Group structure.

He further urged the Employment Court to declare that the recruitment and appointment of Bonnie Okumu, his former assistant, as the Group Company Secretary, in relation to the contemporaneous termination of his employment, was unprocedural, insufficient and inappropriate to infer a lawful termination of his employment.

“A declaration that the factual and legal circumstances of the Petitioner’s termination of employment were insufficient and inappropriate to infer a redundancy against him, and that any redundancy declared by the KCB Group in relation to him was therefore null, void and of no legal effect and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau says he was subjected to discriminatory practices by the KCB Bank Group in violation of his fundamental right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed in Article 27 of the Constitution and the termination of his employment was unfair, unjustified, illegal, null and void.

Lawyer Kamau further seeks the court to declare that the Non-Compete Clause in the 2016 Contract is unenforceable by the KCB Group as against him and is voidable by him as against the Bank ab initio, byreason of the termination of the Petitioner’s employment having been a violation of Articles 41(1) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and of the Employment Act.

He also wants the Employment Court to find that finding that KCB’s group legal representation by Messrs of Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates law firm in respect of his claim for unlawful termination of employment resulted in a clear conflict of interest by reason of the fact that a Founding and Senior Partner at the said firm lawyer Mohammed Nyaoga is also the Chairman of the CBK’s Board of Directors.

“A Declaration that the circumstances of KCB’s legal representation by Messrs. Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates resulted in a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to have the employment dispute decided independently and impartially, as guaranteed in Article 50(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau is seeking damages against both KCB Group and Central Bank of Kenya jointly and severally for the violation of his constitutional and fundamental right to fair labour practices.

He wants  further wants court to declare that CBK is liable to petitioner on account of its breach of statutory duty to effectively regulate KCB Group to ensure that KCB complied with the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines and all other Laws, Rules, Codes and Standards, and that, as an issuer of securities, it complied with capital markets legislation.

Kamau through his lawyer Nderitu told the court that he was involved in Shareholder engagement in introducing the Group aide-mémoire that significantly improved the management of the Annual General Meetings, including obtaining approval without voting through the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Kenya Commercial Bank Limited among others.

He said that during his employment at KCB Bank Kenya and with the KCB Group, he initially worked well with former KCB CEO Joseph Oigara until 2016 when the CEO allegedly started sidelining him by removing the legal function from his reporting line.

He further claims he was transferred from the Group’s offices at Kencom House to its offices Upper Hill under the guise that the Petitioner was merely to support the KCB Group Board.

He adds that at that point his roles were given to Okumu for reasons that were not related to work demands.  He stated that Oigara at one time proposed that he should leave his role in the KCB Group and go and serve as the Company Secretary of the National Bank of Kenya Limited, a subsidiary of the Group, a suggestion which he disagreed with to Oigara’s utter annoyance.

Kamau stated that his work was thenceforth unfairly discredited, leading to his being taken through a disciplinary process whose intended outcome failed miserably, and the Petitioner was vindicated.

“More specifically, the Petitioner contends that the purported creation of a new organizational structure towards the end of 2020 was in fact Oigara’s orchestration targeted to remove certain individuals by requiring them to undergo interviews in the pretext that new roles were created, and amounted to a further violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to fair labour practices under Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” said in his court documents.

He further adds that this sham reorganization demonstrates how the role of the KCB Group Company Secretary purportedly ceased to be and was then very briefly replaced with a new role of the KCB Group General Counsel. The role of KCB Group Company Secretary then ‘resurfaced’ immediately thereafter, in total violation of legal and regulatory requirements.

Continue Reading

Trending