Sakwa v Muaka (Civil Appeal 148 of 2019) [2025] KECA 590 (KLR) (28 March 2025) (Judgment)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 590
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 590 (KLR)
- Decided
- 28 March 2025
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to handle the matter, as the parties had agreed to refer disputes to arbitration. The Court also found that the agreement was not a 'domestic arrangement' but a commercial one.
Facts
The appellant, Beryl Awinja Sakwa, claimed that she had advanced Kshs.1,977,797 to the respondent, Angaluki Muaka, as start-up capital for a joint business venture. The respondent, Angaluki Muaka, claimed a refund of the start-up capital and monthly instalments, along with a penalty fee for non-payment.
Issues
- Pursuant to the Partnership Act No. 16 of 2012, should the dispute have been referred to arbitration?
- Why did the High Court assume a jurisdiction, which it did not have, yet there was no evidence to show that the respondent had referred the dispute to arbitration?
- Was this agreement a 'domestic arrangement', or rather than a commercial agreement?
- As the respondent did not claim that he suffered any losses, should not the claim have been dismissed?
Reasoning
The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and concluded that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration, which the High Court had assumed jurisdiction over. The Court also noted that the respondent did not claim any losses, making the claim inappropriate.
Outcome
Affirmed the judgment of the High Court
Authorities cited
Legislation (1)
- Partnership Act No. 16 of 2012
Cases cited (2)
- Adero & Another vs Ulinzi Sacco Society Limited [2002] 1 KLR 577
- Kenya Ports Authority v Kuston (Kenya) Limited [2009] 2 EA 212
Loading judgment…