Lesedi Developers Limited v Mwangi
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the suit is properly before the Court given the dispute resolution clause in the Sale Agreement
- 2.Whether the Applicant is entitled to an injunction pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was properly before the Court notwithstanding the mediation clause
The suit was not properly before the Court; parties had agreed to mediate first, and the Court could not entertain the claim absent a pending mediation or an appeal from a mediator
Clause 20 of the Sale Agreement required amicable negotiation then mediation, with court access limited to appeals from a mediator's determination or interim/conservatory relief pending mediation. No mediation was pending. Applying the literal rule of interpretation, the parties intended ADR first. The Court declined to re-write the contract and referred the parties to mediation.
Whether the Applicant met the Giella v Cassman Brown principles for an injunction
The injunction application failed because the suit itself was not properly before the Court
Although the Applicant submitted it had a prima facie case citing Giella v Cassman Brown, Mrao and other authorities, the Court found the threshold question was jurisdiction over the suit. Having found the dispute resolution clause unexhausted, the Court dismissed the application entirely without granting any prayers.
Legal principles established
#- Courts must give effect to parties' agreed dispute resolution mechanisms and cannot re-write contracts for them
- Where a contract provides for mediation before court proceedings, a suit filed without exhausting that mechanism is not properly before the court
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated August 23, 2022 is dismissed entirely
- 2.Parties are referred to Mediation as per Clause 20 of the Sale Agreement, to be commenced within 21 days from the date of the ruling
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land; suit instituted by Originating Summons
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the Respondent from selling or dealing with the suit property pending hearing of the main suit
The suit was found not properly before the Court due to the unexhausted mediation clause, so no interim relief could be granted
Costs
No costs order recorded in the ruling
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the suit is not properly before this Court and cannot therefore be entertained. Parties are referred to Mediation as per Clause 20 of the Sale Agreement.
Having found that this suit is not properly before this Court, then the Court will not grant any of the prayers sought in the instant Notice of Motion Application dated August 23, 2022, and the said Application is dismissed entirely.
Parties are bound by the Sale Agreement, and this Court has no business of re-writing the contract on behalf of the parties herein.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting accounts of the second instalment cheques
Number of post-dated cheques stated inconsistently
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lesedi Developers Limited v Mwangi", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E015 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16715/eng@2023-03-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.