The decision of the court was largely based upon section 10 which requires courts to refrain from interfering with matters governed by the Arbitration Act unless otherwise provided. It carefully assessed the applicable arbitration agreement before finding in favor of the arbitral award. Once the court found that the award was valid under the arbitration agreement Another guiding factor to the court was the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz which provides that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction. Unless the grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal were present, the court stated that it was not within its power to decide on the competence of the tribunal. This signifies that arbitration is an end in itself, as the arbitrators do not need to rely on another system such as the courts to declare whether they have the requisite capacity to determine a case.
- Section 14 provides that the parties are free to create a procedure for challenging an arbitrator. Failing such an agreement, parties are called upon to challenge an arbitrator not less than 15 days after knowing the composition of the tribunal or grounds for challenging an arbitrator such as their lack of impartiality. On the other hand, section 17 provides that any challenge to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal should be raised right after the submission of the statement of defense. These two provisions demonstrate that an applicant has the duty to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal at the earliest opportunity possible.
- Section 10 of the Act stipulates that no court shall interfere with the matters governed by the act unless otherwise provided for. This means that courts will be quick to uphold arbitration agreements between parties owing to the pro-arbitration policy favored by this provision. Any opposition to the agreement in the form of setting aside the award or refusing the recognition or enforcement of the award will therefore be carefully scrutinized under the limited grounds provided for in section 35 and 37 respectively before it is allowed.
SUMMARY- NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION OF KENYA LIMITED V PRISKO PETROLEUM NETWORK LIMITED
RULING- NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION OF KENYA LIMITED V PRISKO PETROLEUM NETWORK LIMITED