Rationale & Relevance
The Judge arrived at this ruling by adopting a narrow interpretation of Section 35 of the Arbitration Act regarding the setting aside of an arbitral award. According to the court, the Respondent did not provide any sufficient grounds to satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the Arbitration Act.
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act strictly relates to international/foreign arbitral awards. Parties seeking to set aside a domestic award cannot rely on it.
Section 10 of the Arbitration Act provides that no court shall intervene in matters governed by the Arbitration Act.
For an arbitral award to be adopted as an order/judgment/decree of the court, the requirements under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act must be satisfied i.e., furnishing of the original arbitral award or a duly certified copy, and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it.
Courts narrowly interpret the public policy ground for setting aside an arbitral award present in Section 35 of the Arbitration Act.
It is not the role of the court to review and/or sit on appeal over the decision of an arbitrator. The leading precedent for this perspective is Nyutu Agrovet v Airtel Network Limited & Others  eKLR.
Arbitration clauses are deemed to include any and all disputes between parties to an arbitration unless expressly excluded