Aristocrats Concrete Limited v Concrete Construction Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E037 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 613 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land dispute was sent to arbitration as agreed in the sale contract, and the seller was blocked from selling the land until arbitration finishes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this matter should be referred to arbitration
- 2.Whether an injunction should issue pending the determination of the arbitration proceedings
Key legal issues
#Whether the matter should be referred to arbitration under clause 13.0 of the sale agreement
The arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, the plaintiff approached the court promptly, and the matter was referred to arbitration.
The court examined clause 13.0 of the agreement dated 14/12/2021 and found that the parties consented to the arbitration seat, location and applicable law. Applying Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Arbitration Act, and following Synergy Industrial Credit and Blue Limited v Jaribu Credit Traders, it held the clause separable and enforceable absent evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, leaving validity disputes to the arbitrator.
Whether an injunction should issue pending arbitration under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act
Interim relief was granted because the plaintiff's assertions were unrebutted and established a prima facie case warranting preservation of the suit property.
Guided by Safaricom v Ocean View Beach Hotel, the court applied the arbitration-specific criteria rather than the Giella v Cassman Brown strictures. The plaintiff produced the agreements, a subdivision scheme, proof of Kshs. 18,000,000 payment and correspondence demanding possession. The defendant responded only with grounds of opposition and no replying affidavit, so the allegations went unchallenged and the property required preservation.
Legal principles established
#- The presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement does not exclude the court's authority; instead, proceedings should be stayed in accordance with Section 6 of the Arbitration Act.
- An arbitration clause is a distinct and separable agreement; a party cannot question the validity of the overall agreement to challenge the arbitration clause.
- Where a supporting affidavit is not rebutted by a replying affidavit, the averments are taken as true and unchallenged.
Court orders
#- 1.This matter be and is hereby referred to an arbitrator pursuant to clause 13 of the agreements for sale, dated 14/12/2021
- 2.Pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings, an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, servants or legal representatives from transacting, selling, charging, alienating or in any way interfering with or dealing with L.R. NO. 22133
- 3.Each party shall bear their respective costs of the notice of motion dated 20/03/2025
- 4.A mention date to be given for purposes of updating the court on the arbitral process
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 6 and 7 of the Arbitration Act; Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
This matter be and is hereby referred to an arbitrator pursuant to clause 13 of the agreements for sale, dated 14/12/2021.
That pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings, an order of temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the defendant by itself, its agents, servants or legal representatives from transacting, selling, charging, alienating and or in any way whatsoever interfering with or otherwise dealing with the property known as land parcel number L.R. NO. 22133.
After examining clause 13.0 of the said agreements, it is clear that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable.
The absence of a replying affidavit rebutting the assertions in the supporting affidavit is construed to mean that the defendant has no claim against the plaintiff.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling is dated 10th February 2026 in the disposal clause but recites considering submissions dated 11/11/2025 'at the time of writing this ruling'; the internal chronology is not clarified.
The case number and full party names of the suit are not disclosed anywhere in the ruling.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aristocrats Concrete Limited v Concrete Construction Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E037 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 613 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not disclosed in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/613/eng@2026-02-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.