Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 3rd April 2014 (ruling)· [2020] KEELC 3590 (KLR)

Anne Muthoni Karanu v La Nyavu Gardens Limited [2020] KEELC 3590 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 February 2020
810 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

When a contract requires mediation before arbitration and mediation fails, Kenyan courts will stop the lawsuit and send the dispute to arbitration as agreed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (E. O. Obaga, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2014 by the Defendant/Applicant seeking a stay of proceedings and reference to arbitration under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act, pursuant to a dispute-resolution clause in a letter of offer dated 17th December 2010 for the purchase of a portion of land in a housing scheme on LR No. 2259/703. Clause 10 of the offer required disputes to be mediated by the presiding Bishop of CITAM and, failing resolution, referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by agreement or, failing agreement within fifteen days, by the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Kenya Branch. After the dispute arose, the Respondent filed this suit. In her replying affidavit she did not oppose a stay but stated that both she and the advocates had approached the presiding Bishop, who declined to mediate; she asked that the matter go to court-annexed mediation or, if to arbitration, that the court fix timelines for filing the award. The Respondent did not file submissions. The court held that the contract did not contemplate court-annexed mediation; mediation having been attempted and failed, arbitration was the only remaining avenue in accordance with the parties' agreement. It declined to fix timelines for the award as that would encroach on the arbitrator's discretion. The court stayed the proceedings, referred the matter to arbitration, and awarded the Applicant the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to stay proceedings pending arbitration under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act

Holding

Stay granted and dispute referred to arbitration since the parties' agreement contained a valid mediation/arbitration clause and mediation had already failed

Reasoning

Clause 10 of the letter of offer required disputes first to be mediated by the presiding Bishop of CITAM and, failing resolution, referred to arbitration. Both parties attempted the mediation and the Bishop declined. The Respondent was not averse to arbitration, preferring only court-annexed mediation, which was not a mechanism the contract contemplated. The court therefore honoured the parties' agreement and stayed the suit, referring the dispute to arbitration with appointment per the contract clause.

p. 2
02

Whether the court should direct court-annexed mediation or fix timelines for the award

Holding

Both requests declined: the contract did not provide for court-annexed mediation, and setting award timelines would encroach on the arbitrator's discretion

Reasoning

The Respondent proposed court-annexed mediation and timelines for filing the award. The court held that the contractual mechanism was private mediation followed by arbitration; since private mediation had failed, arbitration was the only remaining avenue. It also declined to impose timelines, holding that scheduling the arbitration, including delivery of the award, lies within the arbitrator's own discretion and not the court's.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where parties have agreed on a dispute-resolution mechanism and mediation has failed, the court should stay proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the parties' agreement under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act
  • A court will not prescribe timelines for an arbitrator to deliver an award, as that is within the arbitrator's discretion

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Proceedings in the suit stayed
  2. 2.Matter referred to arbitration, with the arbitrator to be appointed in the manner contemplated in the letter of offer dated 17th October 2010
  3. 3.Applicant to have costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Arbitration ActSection 6
  • Arbitration Act, 1995generally (applicable law per contract clause)
  • Arbitration Rules 1998generally (applicable rules per contract clause)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1995

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Anne Muthoni Karanu v La Nyavu Gardens Limited [2020] KEELC 3590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2014 (ruling). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3590/eng@2020-02-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.