Veronica Akoth Holtz v VDH Developments Limited & Another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court sent a property dispute to arbitration and refused to disqualify the developer's lawyers, ruling that contract validity questions belong to the arbitrator.
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 matter ought to be stayed and referred to arbitration.
- 2.Whether the firm of Daly Inamdar Advocates LLP, its partners, associates, and or employees ought to be disqualified from representing the Defendants.
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be stayed and referred to arbitration under section 6 of the Arbitration Act
Referred to arbitration; the question of whether the sale agreement was void ab initio is for the arbitral tribunal under the doctrine of competence-competence and separability
Section 6 requires a stay unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Section 17 vests the arbitral tribunal with power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and the underlying contract. Relying on Safaricom v Ocean View Beach Hotel and Infocard Holdings, the court held that determining whether the sale agreement was void would usurp the tribunal's powers, and referred the dispute to arbitration.
Whether Daly Inamdar Advocates LLP should be disqualified from acting for the Defendants
Application dismissed; no real mischief or prejudice demonstrated
Applying Delphis Bank v Chatthe, Imperial Bank v Popat and Guardian Bank v Sonal Holdings, the court held that mere assertion of possession of confidential information is insufficient; the party seeking disqualification must demonstrate real likelihood of mischief or prejudice. The agreement was a common document with no identified confidential content, and the litigation was handled by a different partner in the firm than the one who attested the agreement.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal is clothed with jurisdiction to determine the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and the underlying contract; a court should not determine those questions.
- Disqualification of an advocate requires evidence of real mischief and real prejudice; mere drafting of transaction documents or possible witness status does not suffice.
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendants' application dated 30th April 2026 allowed in terms of prayer No. 1; proceedings stayed to enable the parties refer the dispute to arbitration.
- 2.The Plaintiff's application dated 5th May 2026 dismissed.
- 3.Costs of the Plaintiff's application to the Defendants.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1995; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Disqualification of Daly Inamdar Advocates LLP from representing the Defendants and striking out of the Conditional Memorandum of Appearance
No evidence of confidential information or real mischief and prejudice; mere drafting/attestation of the agreement and possible witness status insufficient
Costs
Costs of the Plaintiff's application dated 5th May 2026 to the Defendants. No costs order made on the Defendants' application.
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 all these is that the defendants' application dated 30th April 2026 is found merited and allowed in terms of prayer No. 1. The proceedings herein are consequently stayed to enable the parties refer the dispute for arbitration.
The Plaintiff's Application dated 5th May 2026 is found to lack merit and is accordingly dismissed. Costs of the application to the defendants.
setting out to evaluate those principles and make a determine on whether the sale agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was invalid or void ab initio would be tantamount to usurping the powers of the Arbitral Tribunal
The party seeking disqualification must demonstrate a real likelihood of mischief or prejudice arising from the said advocate's continued representation.
Issues in the judgment
#Application described inconsistently as Chamber Summons and Conditional Memorandum of Appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Veronica Akoth Holtz v VDH Developments Limited & Another", Case Analysis (2026). ELC NO. E022 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6046/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.