[2019] KEELC 3804 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3804 (KLR)

The court found that the sale agreements between the relevant plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant contained a valid and operative arbitration clause, which required any disputes arising from the agreements to be referred to arbitration. The application for stay of proceedings was made promptly and before any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3804 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: John Habel Were; Plaintiff: Joseph Chengo; Plaintiff: Robertson Binayo Osangale; Plaintiff: David Ndungu Kuria; Plaintiff: Richard Mwanzia; Plaintiff: John Charo Masha; Plaintiff: Wilson Wambugu Mwangi & Serah Wairimu Wambugu; Plaintiff: Vascoline Mwania; Plaintiff: Mercy Njeri Gachara; Plaintiff: Sammy Tirop Togom; Plaintiff: Mike Muchai Mwangi; Plaintiff: Winnie Jelagat Maru; Plaintiff: Silvia Agasa; Plaintiff: Thomas Chacha Muniko; Plaintiff: Hustin Investment Limited; Plaintiff: K-Pals Limited; Plaintiff: African Leadership & Reconciliation Ministries; Defendant: Haron Osoro Nyamboki; Defendant: Enesi Investment Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 32 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Stay Application and Referral to Arbitration
Outcome
Application allowed in part; proceedings stayed and matter referred to arbitration except for suits by 1st, 11th, and 16th plaintiffs.
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause, Sale Agreements, Stay of Proceedings, Referral to Arbitration
Source Language
en
Land and Property Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Clause Sale Agreements Stay of Proceedings Referral to Arbitration

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Habel Were

Plaintiff

Joseph Chengo

Plaintiff

Robertson Binayo Osangale

Plaintiff

David Ndungu Kuria

Plaintiff

Richard Mwanzia

Plaintiff

John Charo Masha

Plaintiff

Wilson Wambugu Mwangi & Serah Wairimu Wambugu

Plaintiff

Vascoline Mwania

Plaintiff

Mercy Njeri Gachara

Plaintiff

Sammy Tirop Togom

Plaintiff

Mike Muchai Mwangi

Plaintiff

Winnie Jelagat Maru

Plaintiff

Silvia Agasa

Plaintiff

Thomas Chacha Muniko

Plaintiff

Hustin Investment Limited

Plaintiff

K-Pals Limited

Plaintiff

African Leadership & Reconciliation Ministries

Plaintiff

Haron Osoro Nyamboki

Defendant

Enesi Investment Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Stay Application and Referral to Arbitration

  1. 1 Whether the existence of an arbitration clause in the sale agreements requires the court to stay proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of proceedings was made promptly and in accordance with Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether any exceptions to referral to arbitration under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act apply in this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sale agreements between the relevant plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant contained a valid and operative arbitration clause, which required any disputes arising from the agreements to be referred to arbitration. The application for stay of proceedings was made promptly and before any substantive steps were taken in the proceedings. The plaintiffs/respondents did not raise any of the statutory exceptions under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act, such as the arbitration agreement being null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, nor did they demonstrate that there was no dispute to refer. The court, therefore, held that it was bound to stay the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; proceedings stayed and matter referred to arbitration except for suits by 1st, 11th, and 16th plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The proceedings are stayed and the matter is referred to arbitration.
  • The suit filed by the 1st, 11th, and 16th plaintiffs shall proceed to hearing.