The court adopted a strict interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in the Nyutu case in that, a party who desires to appeal against arbitration proceedings at the Court of Appeal ought to first obtain leave of either the trial court or the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under Article 164(3) of the Constitution to hear appeals from the High Court and any other court or tribunal as prescribed by an Act of Parliament. However, there are matters or disputes whose appeal to the Court of Appeal is not automatic. There are matters which may require leave of the trial court or even the Court of Appeal before instituting such an appeal. One of those matters are appeals to this court arising out of arbitration proceedings pursuant to Section 35 of the Arbitration Act.
- In the Nyutu case, the Supreme Court held that a party who desires to appeal such proceedings to the Court of Appeal must first obtain leave of the court of either the trial court or the Court of Appeal to do so. The court observed as follows: – “78. In stating as above, we reiterate that courts must draw a line between legitimate claims which fall within the ambit of exceptional circumstances necessitating an appeal and claims where litigants only want a shot at an opportunity which is not deserved which completely negates the whole essence of arbitration as an expeditious and efficient way of delivering justice. The High Court and the Court of Appeal particularly have the onerous yet simple task. A leave mechanism as suggested by Kimondo J. and the interested party may well be an answer to the process, by which frivolous, time wasting and opportunistic appeals maybe nibbled in the bud and hence bring arbitration proceedings to a swift end……”