The authorized battle between Cytonn Investments Management PLC and Margaret Mary Njuguna took a pivotal flip on the High Court in Nairobi, with the High Court consolidating the 2 issues and listening to them collectively.
Table of Contents
The Cytonn Dispute
The case stems from a monetary dispute through which Njuguna, a retiree, invested her life financial savings in a product managed by Cytonn.
Dissatisfied with the end result of the funding, she pursued arbitration, leading to an award of Kshs. 41.4 million plus compound curiosity from October 1, 2021, in her favor.
The award, issued on January 31, 2023, by sole arbitrator Mercy Nduta Mwangi, was challenged by Cytonn within the High Court.
Dual Applications
Cytonn’s utility (Misc. Arb. No. 030 of 2023), filed on 2 May 2023, sought to put aside the arbitral award beneath Section 35 of the Arbitration Act.
Njuguna’s utility (Misc. Arb. No. E018 of 2023), filed earlier on 1 March 2023, sought to implement the identical award beneath Section 36 of the Act.
The agency sought to put aside the award, citing:
- Lack of a sound arbitration settlement,
- Arbitrator bias and undue affect,
- Conflict with Kenya’s public coverage,
- Denial of a good listening to.
Njuguna’s utility (Misc. Arb. No. E018 of 2023), filed earlier on 1 March 2023, sought to implement the identical award beneath Section 36 of the Act.
Time Barred Challenge
Justice Mugambi first addressed Cytonn’s utility to put aside the award. The court docket discovered that the applying had been filed exterior the 90-day statutory window supplied beneath Section 35(3) of the Arbitration Act.
As a end result, the court docket held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and struck out the applying.
“The court docket discovered that the applicant’s utility dated 1st May 2023 and filed in court docket on 2nd May 2023 was filed out of time. The court docket concluded, due to this fact, that it had no jurisdiction to listen to the applying, and struck it out,” the choose dominated.
The court docket then granted enforcement of the award, adopting it as a judgment of the court docket.
Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Unhappy with the end result, Cytonn filed a discover of attraction and moved to the Court of Appeal searching for go away to attraction the High Court’s ruling, and a keep of execution of the award pending attraction.
The agency argued that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of statutory timelines and failed to think about vital objections beneath the Arbitration Act.
Respondent’s Reaction
For Margaret Mary Njuguna, the High Court’s resolution to implement the arbitral award was a second of readability.
Njuguna firmly opposed Cytonn’s try to put aside the award, viewing it as a delaying tactic that lacked authorized benefit.
She maintained that the arbitral award had been lawfully and pretty obtained, and that Cytonn’s problem was not solely filed out of time but in addition failed to fulfill the authorized threshold required to overturn such an award.
Her authorized workforce emphasised that the High Court had acted inside its jurisdiction and adopted the regulation in putting out Cytonn’s utility.
For Njuguna, the court docket’s resolution to undertake the award as a judgment was a vital step towards recovering her funding and restoring her monetary stability.
PHOTO/Cytonn
