Legal Analysis of Probationary Contract Extension and Procedural Fairness in Employment Termination – Pamba v Kenya Hospital Association

 Full case: Pamba v Kenya Hospital Association for & on behalf of the Nairobi Hospital & another [2025] KEELRC 1776 (KLR):

I. Introduction

This memorandum provides an analysis of the recent Employment and Labour Relations Court decision in Pamba v Kenya Hospital Association for & on behalf of the Nairobi Hospital & another [2025] KEELRC 1776 (KLR). The decision is significant in clarifying the legal requirements for extension of probationary contracts and the procedural rights of employees under the Employment Act, especially in light of the unconstitutionality of Section 42(1).

II. Issues

1. Whether the probationary period can be unilaterally extended by an employer.
2. Whether an employee whose probationary period has expired is entitled to a fair hearing under Section 41 of the Employment Act.
3. Whether termination of such an employee without adherence to due process is unlawful.
4. What remedies are available for unlawful termination in such circumstances.

III. Relevant Law

• Employment Act, 2007 (Kenya):
• Section 41: Requires that an employee be informed of the reasons for termination and given an opportunity to respond before dismissal.
• Section 42(1): Excluded probationary employees from Section 41 protection; however, this section has been declared unconstitutional (see Nairobi ELRC Petition No. 94 of 2019).
• Section 42(2): Allows extension of probationary contracts only with mutual agreement in writing.
• Constitution of Kenya, 2010:
• Article 47: Right to fair administrative action.
• Article 41: Right to fair labour practices.
• Internal HR Policies: Employer policies are binding and enforceable where they supplement or operationalize statutory obligations.

IV. Case Summary

In the Pamba case:

• The Claimant was employed on a probationary contract.
• After the lapse of the initial probationary period, the Claimant continued working without formal confirmation or an executed extension.
• The Respondents later terminated the Claimant, arguing he was still under probation and not entitled to a hearing.
• The Claimant contested this, asserting that the extension of his probation was invalid because:
• There was no mutual agreement to the extension.
• The extension was not reduced into writing.
• The Respondents failed to follow their own HR policy.
• The Court found:
• The Claimant’s probation had expired.
• The extension was invalid under Section 42(2).
• The Claimant was automatically confirmed and entitled to the protections of Section 41.
• The termination was procedurally unfair and unlawful.
• The Claimant was awarded the maximum compensation for unfair termination.

V. Analysis

1. Probationary Extension Must Be Mutual and In Writing

The case confirms that employers cannot unilaterally extend a probationary period. Section 42(2) requires mutual consent, and failure to document such consent invalidates any purported extension.

2. Employees Are Entitled to Procedural Fairness Regardless of Probation Status

With the invalidation of Section 42(1), all employees, including those on probation, have a constitutional and statutory right to a fair hearing under Section 41. Employers who terminate without adhering to this requirement risk liability for unlawful termination.

3. HR Policy Compliance Is Legally Binding

Internal policies carry the weight of contractual obligations and procedural guidelines. Failure to comply with such policies contributes to findings of procedural unfairness.

4. Remedy: Maximum Compensation

Where termination is both procedurally and substantively unfair, the Court is inclined to grant maximum statutory compensation, particularly where the employer acts in bad faith or with disregard for the law.

VI. Recommendation

To ensure compliance with this ruling and minimize legal exposure:

1. Review and update internal HR policies to align with the Employment Act and constitutional requirements.
2. Ensure any probationary extension is:
• Agreed to mutually, and
• Documented in writing.
3. Disregard Section 42(1) entirely — it is unconstitutional.
4. Before termination, ensure that the procedural steps under Section 41 (notification, explanation, and hearing) are followed for all employees.
5. Train HR personnel and line managers on updated practices regarding confirmation, probation, and termination procedures.

VII. Conclusion

The Pamba decision reinforces the principle that due process in employment matters is not optional, even for probationary employees. Employers must strictly comply with both statutory provisions and internal policies. Failure to do so exposes them to maximum liability for unfair termination.

Please let me know if you would like a checklist or policy template to ensure compliance with this ruling.

 

On affirming that constitutional principles apply fully to public procurement: The Case of Okoiti v Portside Freight Terminals Ltd & 12 Others [2025] KESC 44 (KLR)

An Analysis of the Case Okoiti v Portside Freight Terminals Ltd & 12 Others [2025] KESC 44 (KLR)

Case Overview

The Supreme Court decision in Okoiti v Portside Freight Terminals Ltd marked a landmark pronouncement on constitutional compliance in public procurement, particularly regarding the use of Specially Permitted Procurement Procedures (SPPP) under Section 114A of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (PPAD Act).

The dispute arose after Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) granted Portside Freight Terminals a licence to establish a second grain bulk handling facility at Mombasa Port via SPPP—allegedly bypassing competitive bidding, in breach of Article 227 of the Constitution.

Key Legal Issues

1. Constitutionality of SPPP under Section 114A PPAD Act.
2. Whether KPA’s deviation from competitive procurement was justified by public interest, national security, or exceptional circumstances.
3. Binding nature of the Port Master Plan (2017–2047) and public participation.
4. Whether the decision-making process was ultra vires, particularly in relation to KPA Board vs Accounting Officer roles.
5. Public interest standing and access to justice under Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

• SPPP Use Was Unjustified: KPA failed to prove that open tendering was impractical or uneconomical. Exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated with evidence.
• Violation of Article 227: Procurement must always be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective—constitutional principles, not just procedural steps.
• Master Plan Not Binding, But Normatively Important: Deviation from the Port Master Plan required public participation, especially where public interest and national planning were affected.
• Decision Ultra Vires: The KPA Board acted outside its powers in approving procurement decisions—functions lawfully delegated to the Accounting Officer.
• Public Interest Justiciability Upheld: The Court upheld the right of individuals and groups to bring constitutional claims in public interest procurement matters.

Orders and Outcome

• The procurement process was declared unconstitutional and void.
• The licence and wayleave granted to Portside Freight Terminals were quashed.
• KPA was directed to conduct a fresh procurement process under Article 227.
• Each party to bear its own costs, due to the public interest nature of the petition.

Legal and Academic Significance

1. Reassertion of Constitutional Procurement

Procurement is a constitutional matter, not just administrative. Article 227 is enforceable in courts.

2. Limits to SPPP

SPPP is not a backdoor to non-competitive tenders. Exceptional use must be demonstrably justified.

3. Master Plans as Governance Tools

Deviation from master plans may require fresh public participation. Plans carry strong normative weight.

4. Institutional Role Clarity

Public institutions must respect separation of functions—Boards should not override Accounting Officers.

5. Strengthening Public Interest Litigation

Reinforces that citizens and public interest bodies can challenge unconstitutional actions, even without direct commercial interest.

Critique & Areas for Further Development

• Lack of clear standards on what qualifies as “exceptional” for SPPP.
• No bright line for when master plan deviations require participation.
• Risk to investor confidence in alternative procurement methods.
• Judicial remedies were minimal—no structural or time-bound reforms ordered.

📖 Conclusion

Okoiti v Portside Freight Terminals Ltd is a precedent-setting judgment affirming that constitutional principles apply fully to public procurement. It clarifies the limits of discretion under special procurement procedures and reinforces the role of courts in upholding transparency, accountability, and rule of law in public finance.

 

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.    

Poor or unsatisfactory performance as a ground for termination requires more than verbal warnings (Termination Procedures); The Case of Kamuri v Cleanshelf Supermarkets Limited (Cause 922 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2278 (KLR)

Legal Brief - Kamuri v Cleanshelf Supermarkets Limited (Cause 922 of 2018) [2025] KEELRC 2278 (KLR)

Brief Facts of the Case

• Kamuri was employed by Cleanshelf from February 2011 until his termination in September 2015 as Head of Bakery Section.
• In August 2015, he was placed on compulsory leave for one month due to alleged unsatisfactory performance. He did not receive his salary for August.
• Upon return (1 Sept 2015), he was verbally informed of his termination; followed by a termination letter dated 1 September 2015 which cited poor performance, multiple complaints about fraud, excessive expiry of bakery goods (due to over-ordering), lack of improvement despite verbal warnings.
• He claims he was never appraised, never given warnings in writing, never given a “show cause” notice, and never given an opportunity to be heard.
• The Respondent claims there were verbal warnings, investigations, a notice to disciplinary hearing (letter dated 24 August 2015), but that Kamuri failed to attend that hearing. Also alleges outstanding Sacco loan, and unreturned company property (a laptop), which were offset from his terminal dues.

Issues for determination:

The Court framed the issues for determination as:

1. Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was lawful and fair.
2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies he sought (i.e. payment of withheld amounts, compensation, leave pay, etc.).
3. Whether the Respondent lawfully offset the Claimant’s terminal dues against his Sacco loan and unreturned company property.

 

The Governing Law / Legal Rules

• Employment Act, 2007 (Kenya), especially:
• Section 41: Requires that before terminating for misconduct, poor performance or physical incapacity, the employer must explain the reason to the employee in a language the employee understands, and allow the employee (or another employee or union rep) to be present during explanation; also the employee must be given opportunity to make representations.
• Section 43: Requires a valid reason for termination.
• Precedents:
• Kenya Science Research International Technical and Allied Workers Union (KSRITAWU) v Stanley Kinyanjui and Magnate Ventures Ltd — standard procedure in poor performance cases: pointing out shortcomings, giving opportunity to improve over reasonable time (2–3 months)
• Jane Samba Mkala v Ol Tukai Lodge Ltd — requirement for objective performance evaluation system as benchmark.
• Njenga & 4 others v Motor Boutique Ltd [2024] KEELRC 2206 (KLR) — concerning deduction or withholding of terminal dues when employee has not expressly consented.

Arguments

Claimant’s Arguments

• No performance appraisal or warning (in writing) had been made before the compulsory leave or termination.
• No notice to show cause, no hearing, no opportunity to be heard. Due process not followed.
• Withheld his salary for the one-month leave (August 2015).
• Entitled to other benefits: accrued leave pay, notice, service pay, house allowance.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Claims performance was unsatisfactory; numerous verbal warnings were given.
• That investigations were done, a disciplinary hearing was scheduled (24 August), but Claimant failed to attend.
• Offsetting of loans or property owed by Claimant from terminal dues. For example, Sacco loan, value of laptop not returned.
• Asserts that compulsory leave period’s salary and notice in lieu were already included in terminal dues.

Court’s Findings / Judgment

• The Court found the termination was unfair and unlawful. Key reasons:
1. Respondent failed to establish a valid reason under Section 43. Though the termination letter cited poor performance etc., there was no evidence of objective performance evaluation, no documented performance improvement plan, no written warnings, no appraisal that would establish performance baseline.
2. Procedure under Section 41 was not followed: no evidence that Claimant was given in writing reasons, no notice to show cause, no hearing, no proof of service of the 24 August letter purportedly summoning disciplinary hearing.
3. Compulsory leave instead of an improvement process indicates lack of intention to support improvement. The court held that sending an employee on compulsory leave for performance reasons without proper performance support is “strange” and inconsistent with fair procedure.
4. On offsetting terminal dues: the court found that there was no express authorization from the Claimant for deductions of his dues to pay off his Sacco loan or unreturned laptop. Also no proof the funds were transferred to Sacco, and thus the deductions were unlawful.
• Remedies awarded:

• 6 months’ salary compensation for unfair termination.
• 1 month’s salary in lieu of notice.
• Salary for August 2015 (month on compulsory leave) since not paid.
• Leave pay for 21 accrued leave days.
• Deductions for unreturned laptop (KSh 54,250) were deducted from the award.
• Total award: KSh 554,750 (after deduction)
• Interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full.
• Costs awarded to Claimant.

Legal Significance / Analysis

• Reinforces that poor or unsatisfactory performance as a ground for termination requires more than verbal warnings; needs a structured process (appraisal, notice, opportunity to improve) as per Kenyan law. Employers cannot short-circuit this process.
• Emphasizes procedural fairness in termination cases under the Employment Act: requirement for notice to show cause, a hearing, clarity of reasons, language understood by employee.
• Clarifies that an offset of terminal dues for debts (like loans) or for property must be based on express authorization or agreement; unilateral withholding is unlawful.
• The case underscores the importance of documentation: performance appraisals, warnings, hearing invitations, show-cause notices etc. are critical evidence.

Possible Weaknesses or Counterpoints

• The Respondent claimed some verbal warnings and that there was a disciplinary hearing scheduled; if they had stronger documentary evidence of those, the result might have been different. But in this case, they failed to prove them in court.
• The concept of “reasonable opportunity to improve” may depend on the context; what is reasonable in one job may be different in another. The court in this case considered 2–3 months as a benchmark.

Conclusion / Court’s Holding

The court held in favour of the Claimant. The termination was unlawful and unfair because:

• No valid reason had been shown under section 43.
• Procedural requirements under section 41 were not met.
• The Respondent unlawfully withheld or offset terminal dues (loan, non‑return of property) without express consent or sufficient proof.

Accordingly, the Claimant was awarded multiple remedies (compensation, unpaid salary, leave pay, etc.).

Lega Procedure for Petitioning for Letters of Administration in Kenya

In Kenya, when a person dies intestate (i.e., without leaving a valid will), their surviving dependants—such as a spouse, children, or other close relatives—may apply to the High Court (Family Division) for letters of administration to enable them to manage the deceased's estate under the provisions of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160.

Step 1: Filing the Petition

The process begins with the filing of a Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration Intestate. This petition is lodged by one or more of the deceased’s surviving dependants (as defined under Section 29 of the Law of Succession Act) and must be accompanied by the following documents:

Mandatory Documents:

1. Letter from the Area Chief

   • This letter identifies the deceased and lists all known dependants, specifying their relationship to the deceased.

   • It serves to confirm community knowledge of the deceased’s death and family structure.

2. Affidavit in Support of the Petition (Form P&A 5)

   • This affidavit must disclose the full inventory of the deceased’s assets and liabilities, including land, bank accounts, shares, debts, etc.

   • It also lists all known dependants and their details—names, ages, and relationship to the deceased.

3. Affidavit of Justification of Proposed Administrator(s) (Form P&A 11)

   • This document sets out the qualifications and financial standing of the proposed administrator(s).

   • It assures the court that the administrator is competent and capable of managing the estate.

4. Affidavit of Justification of Proposed Sureties (Form P&A 12)

   • Sworn by two individuals who agree to act as sureties for the proposed administrator(s).

   • The sureties must undertake to compensate the estate for any losses incurred due to the administrator's failure to discharge their duties properly, up to a specified financial limit.

5. Consent to Petition (Form P&A 38)

   • All other persons who are equally entitled to apply for the grant must sign this form.

   • The purpose is to confirm that they have no objection to the proposed administrator(s) proceeding with the petition.

 Step 2: Gazette Notice and Waiting Period

Once the petition is filed, the court will cause a notice of the petition to be published in the Kenya Gazette, as required under Rule 7(4) of the Probate and Administration Rules. This notice serves as a public announcement of the intention to obtain letters of administration.

• A 30-day objection period follows, during which any person with a legitimate claim or objection may file an objection to the grant.

• If no objection is filed within this period, the court may proceed to issue the grant of letters of administration.

 Step 3: Grant of Letters of Administration

The initial grant authorizes the administrator(s) to collect, preserve, and manage the deceased's estate but does not permit distribution of the estate to beneficiaries.

Step 4: Confirmation of Grant

To distribute the assets to the rightful heirs, the administrator(s) must apply for confirmation of the grant under Section 71 of the Law of Succession Act, after the lapse of six months from the date of the initial grant.

• During this process, the administrator submits a Schedule of Distribution (Form P&A 15) showing how the estate is proposed to be distributed among the beneficiaries.

• The court must be satisfied that all beneficiaries are accounted for and that the distribution is fair and in accordance with the law.

⚖️ Note: In exceptional or urgent cases, the court may confirm a grant before the expiry of six months, where compelling reasons exist (e.g., health, education needs of beneficiaries, perishable estate assets).

 Legal Framework:

This process is governed primarily by the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160) and the Probate and Administration Rules made under it. It seeks to ensure that the estates of deceased persons are administered fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law.

 #THE END 

Legal Opinion on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and Payment by Installments – Analysis of Masongo & Another v Riruta Gardens [2025] KEHC 10371 (KLR)

1. INTRODUCTION

This analysis is purposed to review and advise on the High Court ruling in Masongo & Another v Riruta Gardens [2025] KEHC 10371 (KLR), with particular reference to:

• The enforceability of arbitral awards within the 90-day window provided for setting aside; and
• The threshold for obtaining leave to satisfy arbitral awards through installment payments.

2. BACKGROUND

The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Masongo, sought enforcement of an arbitral award delivered in their favor on 11 September 2024. The award arose from a sale agreement dispute between the applicants and Riruta Gardens.

Upon filing an application for enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, the respondent (Riruta Gardens) raised a preliminary objection, asserting that enforcement was premature, as the 90-day window to apply for setting aside the award under Section 35(3) had not expired.

In the alternative, the respondent sought leave to settle the award (Kshs. 7,677,260) in 24 monthly installments, citing cash flow constraints and proposing an interest freeze from 11 October 2024.

The court issued its ruling on 17 July 2025.

3. ISSUES CONSIDERED

1. Whether an arbitral award can be enforced before the expiry of the 90-day window for setting aside under Section 35(3) of the Arbitration Act.
2. Whether a judgment-debtor can be granted leave to pay the arbitral award in installments, and what evidentiary standard must be met.

4. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

• Arbitration Act, 1995 (Revised 2010):
• Section 35(3) – 90-day window to apply for setting aside arbitral awards.
• Section 36 – Recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.
• Civil Procedure Rules, 2010:
• Order 21 Rule 12(1) – Court discretion to permit payment of judgment debts in installments.
• Case Law:
• Freight Forwarders Kenya Ltd v Elsek & Elsek (2012) – Criteria for installment payments.
• Keshavji Jethabhai & Bros Ltd v Saleh Abdulla (1959) – Good faith and financial disclosure are essential.

5. COURT’S FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

a. Enforcement Before Expiry of Section 35(3) Window

The court rejected the respondent’s objection, holding that:

• Mere lapse of time under Section 35(3) does not bar enforcement unless an actual application to set aside is filed and pending.
• Since no such application had been made by Riruta Gardens, there was no legal impediment to the applicants’ enforcement application.

b. Request for Installment Payments

The court analyzed the respondent’s application under Order 21 Rule 12, and held:

• Discretion to allow installment payments must be exercised judicially and only upon sufficient cause being shown.
• The respondent did not provide financial records, audited accounts, or any documentation evidencing cash flow constraints.
• The court further noted that the respondent had not made any part payment of the award, undermining claims of good faith.
• As such, the court found no sufficient basis to grant the installment payment request.

6. CONCLUSION

The court:

• Recognized and adopted the arbitral award dated 11 September 2024 as a judgment of the court;
• Declined the respondent’s application to settle the amount in installments;
• Awarded costs of the application to the applicants.

7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR A  POTENTIAL CLIENT

a. Enforceability of Awards Within 90 Days

Your organization can proceed to enforce a domestic arbitral award immediately upon issuance, unless:

• The judgment debtor has filed a formal application to set aside the award under Section 35; or
• A court has issued a stay of enforcement.

There is no need to wait for the 90-day window to lapse, contrary to common misconception.

b. Installment Payment Proposals

If your organization is a judgment debtor and wishes to pay in installments, the court will only consider such requests if:

• There is full disclosure of financial incapacity (e.g., audited financial statements, bank statements);
• There is a demonstrated good faith effort (e.g., partial payment);
• The request is made promptly and transparently.

Absent these, such applications are unlikely to succeed.

c. For Future Arbitrations

Where XYZ Corporate Client is an award creditor, we recommend:

• Promptly applying to enforce the award without waiting for 90 days;
• Opposing installment payment proposals unless backed by credible documentation;
• Ensuring arbitration clauses remain enforceable and binding under Kenyan law.

8. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the court’s position in Masongo v Riruta Gardens, we advise the following:

1. Where your company is a beneficiary of a domestic arbitral award, proceed with enforcement immediately unless there is a stay or pending setting-aside application.
2. If facing enforcement, and desiring time to pay, ensure your installment proposal is:
• Supported by verifiable financial evidence;
• Presented in good faith with part payment;
• Reasonably structured and time-bound.
3. Strengthen your contracts to include enforceable arbitration clauses, and train relevant departments on the finality of arbitration outcomes under Kenyan law.

Yours sincerely,
Admin.

 

Whether the arbitral award dated 11 September 2024 should be recognized and enforced by the court under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act - The Case of Peter Nyaboga Masongo & Juliet Nyante Masongo v Riruta Gardens (Arbitration Cause No. E065 of 2024 [2025] KEHC 10371 (KLR)

Procedural History / Background

• The applicants filed a Chamber Summons dated 26 September 2024 seeking enforcement of an Arbitral Award dated 11 September 2024, which arose from a dispute related to a sale agreement dated 12 November 2018.
• The dispute had been referred to arbitration per Clause 12 of the sale agreement, and Mr. Dominic N. Mbigi, FCIArb, was appointed arbitrator by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya Branch).
• The arbitration was conducted under the Arbitration Act, 1995.
• The applicants sought:
1. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award;
2. Judgment in terms of the award; and
3. Costs of the application.

Facts of the Case

• The arbitral award was issued on 11 September 2024 in favor of the applicants.
• The respondent did not file an application to set aside the award under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act.
• The respondent objected to enforcement on the grounds that the statutory 90-day period to set aside the award had not yet lapsed (i.e., premature enforcement).
• Additionally, the respondent proposed to settle the award sum of Kshs. 7,677,260 in 24 equal monthly installments, requesting that interest be frozen from 11 October 2024.
• The applicants opposed the proposal, asserting that the respondent had not made any payment since the award and had not demonstrated willingness or capacity to pay.

Legal Issues for determination

1. Whether the arbitral award dated 11 September 2024 should be recognized and enforced by the court under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act.
2. Whether the court should allow the respondent to settle the award in installments as per their proposal.

Legal Principles / Statutory Provisions Applied

• Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act: An arbitral award shall be recognized as binding and enforced by the court upon application.
• Section 36(3): Requires the applicant to produce the original or certified copy of the arbitral award and arbitration agreement.
• Section 35(3): A party may apply to set aside an award within 3 months (90 days) of receiving it.
• Order 21 Rule 12(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules: The court has discretion to allow judgment debts to be paid in installments for sufficient cause.

Court's Analysis

Issue 1: Enforceability of the Arbitral Award

• The court noted that although Section 35(3) provides a 90-day window to challenge an award, this does not create a moratorium or stay against enforcement under Section 36 unless a setting-aside application is actually filed.
• The court emphasized that the respondent had not filed any application to set aside the award or obtained any stay of enforcement.
• The court found that the applicants had fulfilled all requirements under Section 36, including attaching the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement.
• Therefore, there was no legal bar to enforcing the award.

Issue 2: Payment by Installments

• The court acknowledged its discretion under Order 21 Rule 12 to grant payment in installments but stressed that such discretion must be exercised judicially and not merely for convenience.
• The court referred to past precedents:
• Freight Forwarders Kenya Limited v Elsek & Elsek [2012] eKLR
• Keshavji Jethabhai & Bros Limited v Saleh Abdulla [1959] EA 260
• The key principle is that a party seeking installment payments must:
• Show good faith;
• Disclose full financial position;
• Show reasonable prospects of meeting the installment plan;
• Have partially paid or made efforts to pay.
• In this case, the respondent had not demonstrated any payment, nor did they produce financial statements or documents to support the installment request.
• The court therefore found no sufficient cause to justify the respondent’s request.

Court's Holding:

• The arbitral award dated 11 September 2024 is recognized and adopted as a judgment of the court under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act.
• The respondent’s request to pay in 24 monthly installments with frozen interest was denied.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Significance of the Case

• Clarifies that enforcement of arbitral awards is not delayed merely because the 90-day setting aside period has not lapsed—unless an application to set aside is filed.
• Reinforces that courts will not permit installment payments without sufficient cause—mere proposals or assertions without supporting evidence are inadequate.
• Upholds the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards under Kenya’s Arbitration Act.
• Encourages good faith and compliance post-award rather than tactical delay by judgment debtors.