Ndung’u & 5 others v Lesedi Homes Limited & 2 others (Land Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3159 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection based on the ADR clause in the sale agreements ousted the court's jurisdiction
The preliminary objection had no merit; the 1st Defendant was out of time under clause 10 having failed to respond to the dispute declaration, and clause 10(iv) expressly preserved the right to seek interim injunctive relief from a competent court.
Clause 10 set a 29-day timeline for mediation to commence and conclude. The 1st Plaintiff's advocate declared a dispute by letter of 11 June 2024, which the 1st Defendant never answered. The court also found time to be of essence under clause 12. Further, clause 10(iv) expressly preserved the right to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for interim relief pending mediation. The court accordingly found the agreement null and void owing to the Defendant's delay.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to interlocutory injunctions
Yes. The Plaintiffs established a prima facie case with probability of success and stood to suffer irreparable loss as the suit land was being offered to third parties with no guarantee of recovering their investments.
The Plaintiffs paid the full purchase price for house units that were never delivered. The affidavit sworn on 17 July 2024 deponed that the same land was being offered for sale to third parties. The court found no guarantee that the Defendants had the means to recompense the Plaintiffs, so the loss would be irrecoverable, justifying the injunctions in prayers (c) and (e).
Legal principles established
#- An ADR/mediation clause with stipulated timelines does not bar a party from seeking interim injunctive relief where the counterparty fails to respond within those timelines; the clause expressly preserves access to court for interim relief.
- A prima facie case with probability of success for injunctive relief is established where a purchaser has paid the full purchase price for units never delivered and the underlying land is being offered for sale to third parties.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of injunction restraining the Defendants from offering for sale, selling or dealing with the parcels of land comprised in title deed No. Loc.5/Kabati/2413 whereupon house units 01, 02, 04, 05, 12 and 16 are constructed or intended to be constructed pending the hearing and determination of the case
- 2.An order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from transferring or causing the transfer of property comprised in title deed number Loc.5/Kabati/2413 to the 3rd Defendant, Boma Link Concepts Limited, or its nominees or assigns pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 13, 14, 19 and 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Orders 40 rules 2 and 4(1), 51 rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndung’u & 5 others v Lesedi Homes Limited & 2 others (Land Case E017 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3159 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3159/eng@2025-04-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.