Gogo v Atancha (Land Case E460 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4135 (KLR)
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 Plaintiff has met the threshold for interim protection pending referral of the matter to arbitration
Key legal issues
#Whether interim measures of protection pending arbitration should issue
Yes. The sale agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause 13), the dispute fell within it, and the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for interim protection restraining eviction pending arbitration.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Safaricom v Ocean View criteria (existence of arbitration agreement, threat to subject matter, appropriate protective measure), and Section 7 of the Arbitration Act permitting court-granted interim measures, the court found a valid sale agreement with an arbitration clause, an unresolved dispute, and an active threat of eviction and alienation. The restraining orders preserve the status quo pending the arbitral outcome.
Whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration
The referral prayer was spent; the Plaintiff had already referred the matter to arbitration, and the court directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.
Clause 13 of the sale agreement directed disputes to arbitration in the first instance. The court had already acknowledged in an earlier ruling that the Plaintiff had referred the matter to arbitration. Relying on Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act and UAP Provincial Insurance v Michael John Beckett, the court found a dispute within the scope of the arbitration agreement and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.
Legal principles established
#- Where the contract forming the fulcrum of a dispute contains an arbitration clause, a party may establish a prima facie case warranting interim measures pending arbitral proceedings under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Restraining orders issued to the registered owner of Plot No. K5 of Nairobi Block 136/Drumville together with Mr. Bernard Tony Atancha from evicting or interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and occupation of the said property pending reference of the dispute to arbitration and outcome of the said arbitration proceedings
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 7 of the Arbitration Act (interim measures by court) in a suit over Plot No. K5 of Nairobi Block 136/Drumville
Relief refused
#Prayer for joint appointment of an independent valuer to assess construction and improvements on the plot
Not expressly granted in the final orders; the court found it would fall within interim measures under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act which the court has discretion to grant, but no valuation order issued
Formal order referring the dispute to arbitration
The court noted the referral prayer was spent as the Plaintiff had already referred the matter to arbitration
Costs
Costs of the application to be in the cause.
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 restraining orders be and are hereby issued to the registered owner of Plot No. K5 of Nairobi Block 136/Drumville together with Mr. Bernard Tony Atancha, the respondent herein from evicting or interfering with the Plaintifi's peaceful possession and occupation of the said property known as Plot No. K5 of Nairobi Block 136/Drumville pending reference of the dispute herein to arbitration and outcome of the said arbitration proceedings.
since the impugned sale agreement which forms the fulcrum of the dispute herein contained an Arbitration Clause, the Plaintifi has indeed established a prima facie case to warrant grant of interim measures pending outcome of the arbitral proceedings.
Costs of the application to be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 6th July 2026 and refers to a prior Ruling dated 2nd December 2025, which post-dates the application dated 5th November 2024; chronology appears unusual but is as printed.
The case number of the suit is not stated in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gogo v Atancha (Land Case E460 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4135 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4135/eng@2026-07-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.