Eunice Soko Mlagui v Suresh Parmar & 4 others [2017] KECA 736 (KLR)

Facts

The appellant, Eunice Soko Mlagui, filed a suit in the High Court against Suresh Parmar and three other shareholders (1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents) regarding the distribution of assets of a company. The respondents denied the appellant's claim and contended that the dispute should be referred to arbitration.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's application for stay of proceedings and referral to arbitration
2. Whether the respondents' joint defence and witness statements were sufficient to address the appellant's claims

Reasoning

The court held that the respondents did not object to the dispute being referred to arbitration, and the appellant could not ask the court to sever the dispute. The court also noted that the High Court has discretion to refer a dispute to arbitration but must satisfy the conditions set out in section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs to the 4th and 5th respondents

Authorities cited