Ajwala v Rosslyn Suites Limited & 2 others (Land Case E334 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3373 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ordered a property dispute to arbitration because the lease's arbitration clause applied, despite a consumer-protection argument.
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 Applicants have taken any step in the proceedings other than the steps allowed by Section 6 of the Arbitration Act
- 2.Whether there are any legal impediments on the validity of the arbitration clause
- 3.Whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to real estate lease transactions
- 4.Whether the arbitration clause in the lease is enforceable
- 5.Whether the court should stay the proceedings to allow the parties refer the matter to arbitration
Key legal issues
#Whether the proceedings should be stayed pending arbitration under section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act
Yes. The arbitration clauses (8.10 and 8.11) were valid and unchallenged; the applicant had taken no disqualifying step; and all the pleaded breaches arose from the lease agreement, so the matter was referable to arbitration.
The court examined the lease agreements and confirmed arbitration clauses 8.10 and 8.11. The respondent did not assert the clause was null, void, inoperative or incapable of performance. The plaint's particulars of breach all arose from the lease agreement, so the consumer-protection argument failed. Section 6(1) is mandatory subject to limited exceptions, and the constitutional imperative favouring ADR required the court to give effect to the parties' chosen dispute-resolution mode.
Whether the dispute falls outside arbitration as a consumer-protection matter under section 88(1) of the Consumer Protection Act
No. The alleged breaches were of the lease agreement itself, and the disputes were captured by clause 8.10 of the lease.
The respondent argued that the leases were consumer agreements under section 88(1) of the Consumer Protection Act and thus not arbitrable. The court reviewed the plaint's particulars of breach - unfair terms, misleading information, concealment, delay in delivery - and found they all emanated from the lease agreement and were captured in clause 8.10. The applicants also argued the Act applied to goods and services, not immovable property. The consumer characterisation therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act is mandatory, but a stay will be refused where the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, or where there is no dispute.
- Where the dispute arises from breach of the lease agreement itself, characterising it as a consumer dispute does not defeat an arbitration clause.
- Courts must give effect to parties' contractual autonomy in choosing arbitration as the mode of dispute resolution.
Court orders
#- 1.That there be a stay of proceedings in this suit pending arbitration of this dispute in compliance with the terms of the respective lease agreements entered into between the applicants and respondents
- 2.The matter is hereby referred to Arbitration. The arbitration should be completed within 60 days of referral to an Arbitrator failing which either parties shall be at liberty to move the court to list the matter for hearing
- 3.Costs of the application be borne by Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act No. 4 of 1995; inherent powers of the court
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.
That there be a stay of proceedings in this suit pending arbitration of this dispute in compliance with the terms of the respective lease agreements entered into between the applicants and respondents
The matter is hereby referred to Arbitration. The arbitration should be completed within 60 days of referral to an Arbitrator failing which either parties shall be at liberty to move the court to list the matter for hearing
It is not asserted by the Respondent that clause 8.10 and 8.11 being the Arbitration Agreement is null and void or otherwise incapable of being performed
In light of the Constitutional imperative for courts to promote Alternative Dispute Resolution, courts should to the fullest extent possible, give efiect intentions of the parties as to the mode of resolving any dispute that arises.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates given for the sale/lease agreement relating to apartment E304
The judgment is dated 4th June 2026 but recites affidavits and submissions dated after that period and refers to an application of 25th September 2025; also the judgment elsewhere refers to arbitration clauses existing in 'sale agreements' and 'lease agreements' inconsistently
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ajwala v Rosslyn Suites Limited & 2 others (Land Case E334 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3373 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3373/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.