A favourable arbitration award does not always mark the end of a lease dispute. Later enforcement, review and appeal proceedings can change what the parties must do next. Reading only the award's outcome may miss the order currently governing the dispute.
In Devkan Enterprises Limited v Edermann Company (K) Limited, Civil Application No. E239 of 2025, the Court of Appeal paused an order requiring fresh arbitration. Its ruling, delivered on 3 October 2025, preserved the position pending an intended appeal; it did not finally decide the appeal's legal questions. (PDF pages 1 and 7-9.)
A lease dispute acquired several procedural layers
Devkan was the tenant and Edermann the landlord under a May 2005 lease. Their dispute went to arbitration, producing an October 2012 award in Devkan's favour. The High Court then dismissed both Devkan's enforcement application and Edermann's application to set the award aside, for different reasons. (Page 1.)
Enforcement failed because a certified copy of the award had not been exhibited. The setting-aside application failed to meet the Arbitration Act's section 35 thresholds. In April 2019, a review ruling subsequently adopted the award as a court judgment and a decree issued. Those stages should not be confused with one uninterrupted enforcement success. (Page 1.)
In October 2024, another High Court ruling, prompted by an application citing new material, set aside the award and directed fresh arbitration before a different arbitrator. Devkan lodged a notice of appeal and sought a stay. (Page 2.)
An arguable appeal was not a merits victory
The Court of Appeal applied the two-part stay test: an arguable appeal and a risk that refusing relief would render the appeal nugatory, meaning practically worthless. Both requirements had to be satisfied. An arguable point need not be one that will ultimately win. (Pages 6-7.)
Here, the proposed appeal raised serious questions about setting aside an award already adopted as a judgment, a possible "review of a review," and the relationship between newly discovered evidence and statutory grounds for challenging arbitral awards. The judges found those questions worthy of full appellate consideration. They did not conclusively resolve them in this stay ruling. (Page 7.)
Edermann argued that the earlier enforcement process and later review concerned different issues, and that fresh arbitration would not prevent the appeal being decided. It also maintained that costs could compensate any prejudice. Those submissions were considered but did not defeat the stay request. (Pages 4-6.)
Restarting arbitration carried consequences
The court found that fresh proceedings would consume substantial, irrecoverable time and resources before the appeal could be determined. It also identified a wider problem: requiring a second arbitration while the legality of ordering it remained under an arguable appeal. The concern was not simply an ordinary bill that could later be reimbursed. (Pages 7-8.)
The judges rejected treating the challenged ruling as merely a negative order refusing relief. It positively set aside an adopted award and required the parties to begin again, creating immediate practical and financial obligations. (Page 8.)
The stay came with an accelerated timetable
The court stayed the October 2024 ruling and all consequential orders pending determination of the intended appeal. Devkan had 45 days from the ruling to file and serve its appeal record and submissions; Edermann had 21 days after service to respond. Priority listing was directed after filing, and application costs were left to the appeal's outcome. (Pages 8-9.)
This account does not establish subsequent compliance, the appeal's result or present lease status. No parcel or county is identified in the ruling. For property decisions, distinguish an award, an enforcement order and temporary appellate protection. See how ArdhiScore works with parcel intelligence from available court, gazette and field evidence. Coverage varies; it does not guarantee complete dispute discovery or replace legal advice.