The High Court has ordered the Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) to pay a contractor, Doch Company Ltd, more than Sh1.25 billion in damages for a dispute arising from the termination of a Sh398.9 million contract to rehabilitate Nanyuki Airstrip.
The court rejected KAA’s attempt to overturn the arbitral award as time-barred, ruling that the agency missed the deadline to challenge a 2022 arbitration award.
The court also awarded the company simple interest at 16 per cent a year from March 18, 2022, until payment, plus costs. Using the court’s daily interest figure, the principal and interest totalled about Sh2 billion by October 8, 2026, before costs.
“Judgment is entered in favour of Doch against KAA in the following terms: -Sh1.25 billion being damages as awarded by the Arbitrator. Simple interest on the said sum of Sh1.25 billion at the rate of 16 per cent per annum being a daily sum of Sh548,531 from March 18, 2022 until payment in full,” said the judge.
The dispute began with a Sh398.9 million contract signed on September 3, 2014, to rehabilitate Nanyuki Civil Airstrip’s runway, apron and car park. KAA terminated the agreement on August 22, 2016.
Doch challenged the termination and sought damages, while KAA argued that the award was excessive and should not stand.
The contract required unresolved disputes to go to arbitration. In October 2016, the High Court suspended the suit and directed the parties to appoint an arbitrator.
The process stalled over the formal appointment, although the parties agreed on engineer Peter Scott. In February 2020, a court dismissed Doch’s application for further court intervention, saying the contract already provided an appointment procedure.
The eventual arbitration was conducted by retired judge Joseph Gregory Nyamu, who delivered his award on March 18, 2022, and the parties were notified that the award was ready for collection upon payment of his fees.
Under the Arbitration Act, the parties had three months from March 18, 2022, when the arbitrator notified them that the award was ready for collection, to challenge it in court.
Doch collected the ruling and moved to court in April 2025, applying for orders to enforce the Sh1.25 billion award.
On the other hand, KAA applied to have the said award set aside on June 16, 2025, arguing that it offended public policy, granted excessive damages and interest, and dealt with matters outside the arbitrator’s mandate.
Doch managing director, Johnson Wachira Waithaka, responded with an objection arguing that KAA’s application was filed outside the statutory period, and that the State agency had not met the threshold for setting aside the award on public-policy grounds.
Doch said the clock started on March 18, 2022, when the arbitrator notified both parties that the award was ready for collection after payment of fees. KAA argued it received the award in March 2025, after fees and supporting documents were addressed.
The court found that a notification that an award is ready for collection starts the deadline, even if it has not been physically collected.
“There is no dispute that the arbitrator notified the parties that the award was ready for collection on March 18, 2022,” the judge said. The court ruled that KAA’s June 2025 application was “time-barred.”
The judge rejected KAA’s explanation for the delay. The judgment says KAA paid Sh3.5 million into the arbitrator’s personal account on May 4, 2023, but did not notify him or provide proof until April 2025.
Doch paid a further Sh2 million on December 18, 2023, clearing the outstanding balance, according to correspondence cited in the ruling.
“The arbitrator is not to blame for delay in releasing the award to the parties,” the court said. The parties were responsible for paying fees, notifying the arbitrator and providing proof. The court said KAA had not given a “plausible explanation for the delay.”
“It would be against the Constitution to permit one party to cause delays in arbitral process and seek to reap benefit from the delay,” the court stated, finding that KAA’s challenge was filed outside the deadline.
KAA argued the payment would impose an unconscionable burden on public funds and breach constitutional public-finance principles. It also said the arbitrator exceeded the dispute’s scope and failed to address every issue.
According to KAA, the award was contrary to public policy because the damages and interest were excessive compared with the original Sh398.9 million contract. It also contended that payment would lead to the misuse of public funds.
“KAA has not demonstrated that the award is without legal basis or is illegal so as to constitute unjust enrichment,” the judge ruled.
However, the court found that an award’s size compared with the original contract sum did not by itself prove unjust enrichment or breach of public-finance principles.
“Merely that the sum of the award is huge compared to the initial contract sum is not ipso facto [by itself] proof of unjust enrichment or a breach of public finance principles,” the judge said.
He found KAA had not shown the award was illegal or that the arbitrator exceeded the issues referred for determination. The court struck out KAA’s application and allowed Doch’s enforcement application.
Doch argued that breach of contract was among the issues referred to arbitration and that the value and payment for the temporary runway had already been settled, rather than remaining issues for the arbitrator to determine.
“I find that KAA has not demonstrated that the arbitrator went beyond the scope of the reference,” the court said.
