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 Publication of the Year 2021, CIArb (Kenya) Lifetime Achievement Award 2021 and African Arbitrator of the Year 2022 Shortlisted Nominee. Please follow this link to vote for him by Midnight, Monday, 13th June 2022: https://preview.mailerlite.com/m3m6o7l6c8/1968314795065083207/z0p1/*
International arbitration is an important component of the right of access to justice especially in commercial disputes. There have been efforts over the years to ensure that the legal and institutional framework on access to justice in Kenya achieves that: fulfilment of the right of access to justice. Notably, this right comes with several components as a means to an end. In the case of Dry Associates Limited v Capital Markets Authority & Another; Interested Party Crown Berger (K) Ltd, the High Court outlined some of the components of access to justice as follows:
[110] “Access to justice is a broad concept that defies easy definition. It includes the enshrinement of rights in the law; awareness of and understanding of the law; easy availability of information pertinent to one’s rights; equal right to the protection of those rights by the law enforcement agencies; easy access to the justice system particularly the formal adjudicatory processes; availability of physical legal infrastructure; affordability of legal services; provision of a conducive environment within the judicial system; expeditious disposal of cases and enforcement of judicial decisions without delay.”
Further, in Kenya Bus Service Ltd & another v Minister for Transport & 2 others [2012] eKLR, the Court affirmed that “the right of access to justice protected by the Constitution involves the right of ordinary citizens being able to access remedies and relief from the Courts. The Supreme Court also elaborated on the confines of access to justice in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic, in the following words:
[57] Thus, with regard to access to justice and fair hearing, the State through the courts, ensures that all persons are able to ventilate their disputes. Access to justice includes the right to a fair trial. If a trial is unfair, one cannot be said to have accessed justice. In this respect, when a murder convict’s sentence cannot be reviewed by a higher court, he is denied access to justice which cannot be justified in light of Article 48 of the Constitution. The effect of court intervention on arbitral proceedings depends on three critical factors, namely the provisions of the law on court intervention, the general policy and attitude of the court towards its role in arbitration and finally, the approach of lawyers and their clients on court intervention.
The legal provisions on court intervention are mainly found in the Arbitration Act, 1995 and the Arbitration Rules thereunder, the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. There are chances of conflict of rules and uncertainty in the laws on court intervention especially because of the fact that there is no one-stop source of law on the matter. However, all the instances of court intervention provided for in the legal framework as demonstrated above are justified and necessary. For instance, stay of proceedings applications are meant to give effect to the arbitration agreement where one party has filed a suit in court in breach of the agreement. The interim measures of protection before arbitration, offer an opportunity for a party to an arbitration agreement to take measures to maintain the status quo of the subject matter of the intended arbitration. This is clearly an appreciation of the reality that reference to arbitration does not happen overnight.
The court intervention measures during arbitration as provided for under the law are similarly based on demonstrable logic and rationalization. The provisions on court involvement in the appointment of the arbitral tribunal offer a default measure where the parties’ efforts to pursue the agreed modes of appointment have hit a dead end. On its part, the opportunity to challenge arbitrators/the arbitral tribunal, just like the opportunity to challenge the bench in civil proceedings, is meant to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done. It also avoids the likelihood of the disgruntled party opting to later challenge the arbitral award on grounds he could have raised as preliminary matters as that would imply extra expenses and delay in holding fresh arbitration proceedings if the challenge succeeds.
It is universally accepted that jurisdiction is everything and a party should thus not be compelled to put up with an award of a tribunal whose jurisdiction he would rather challenge, whether on the basis of substance or procedure. This is the basis for the provisions on challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The court is also afforded an opportunity to facilitate and aid the arbitration especially in matters that, as an emanation of a private arrangement, the arbitral tribunal cannot undertake and or purport to compel. The opportunities for limited court intervention after the award are even more justified and necessary. The need to set aside arbitral awards that visit manifest injustices on a party cannot be admitted to debate.
In the same breath, arbitral awards, being a result of private contractual arrangements, cannot attain immediate force of law until they are adopted by the court. The court, being the custodian of public policy in Kenya, cannot reasonably be expected to perform a mere rubber-stamping role. The High Court is thus afforded an opportunity to scrutinize the arbitral award. No doubt this also helps secure the party, adversely affected by the arbitral award, a right to be heard in the interest of natural justice. But while the instances of court intervention are rationally justified, the provisions relating to them are far from being perfect and unambiguous. For instance, the provisions on stay of proceedings are beset with unnecessary conditions that even a well-meaning court is disadvantaged in expediting the application especially when the Plaintiff is not receptive. For instance, there is nothing that a judge can do when an application for stay of proceedings is inadvertently lodged a day after entry of appearance except to dismiss it. In such an instance, there is no room for equity when the law is strict in its stipulations.
The uncertainty of the arbitration law on the issue of setting aside arbitral awards even within the allowed timelines has given rise to a myriad of constitutional applications in arbitration proceedings. With regard to the court’s approach to intervention in arbitration, the same has considerably changed from indifference to a perception of the process as being facilitative of arbitration. The sentiments of the court of appeal in the Epco Builders Limited-v-Adam S. Marjan-Arbitrator & Another, and Kenya Shell Limited v Kobil Petroleum Limited are indicative of this change of heart. The courts now see arbitration as an opportunity to wrestle the backlog of cases and yield justice on the parties’ terms. If such a positive attitude could be coupled with the necessary reforms as proposed herein, much ground would be covered in making court intervention a friend, rather than a foe, of arbitration.
*This article is an extract from the article “Looking into the Future: Making Kenya a Preferred Seat for International Arbitration,” 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 as one of the leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts by the Chambers Global Guide 2022.
References
Muigua, K., “Looking into the Future: Making Kenya a Preferred Seat for International Arbitration,” Available at: http://kmco.co.ke/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Looking-into-the-Future-Making-Kenya-a-Preferred-Seat-for-International-Arbitration-Kariuki-Muigua-Ph.D.-28TH-DECEMBER-2020.pdf (accessed on 11/06/2022)