In-Vitro Diagnostics (EA) Ltd v Zuri Manor Villas Limited (Environment and Land Case E419 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2405 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is properly before the Court without a board resolution authorising the deponent
The objection failed; the director was registered at the Company Registry, had ostensible authority, and the Respondent produced no evidence of lack of authority.
Relying on Spire Bank Limited v Land Registrar and Siokwei Tarita Ltd v Dr Charles Walekwa, the Court held that Order 4 Rule 1(4) is not a technicality to strike out suits. Where no evidence demonstrates that the deponent is unauthorised, and the deponent showed Company Registry records registering him as a director, ostensible authority suffices and the suit is not incompetent.
Whether an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act can issue before commencement of arbitration
Yes; Section 7 permits a request to the High Court before or during arbitral proceedings.
The Court invoked the express terms of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act and the Safaricom v Ocean View Beach Hotel conditions: existence of an arbitration agreement, threat to the subject matter, appropriate measure in special circumstances, and duration. It found an arbitration clause in Clause 21 and a live dispute over the completion, default and termination notices, and that eviction would irreversibly alter the substratum of the arbitration.
Whether there exists an arbitrable dispute
The parties' disagreement over the validity of the completion notice, alleged default and legality of termination constitutes a dispute within the arbitration clause.
The Court held that at the interlocutory stage it need only be satisfied that a dispute capable of reference exists and that the arbitration agreement is not plainly invalid. The parties clearly disagreed on the completion notice, the alleged default, and the termination, and these issues fell squarely within Clause 21 of the Agreement for Sale.
Balance of convenience and terms of the interim measure
The balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo pending arbitration.
The Applicant is in occupation and demonstrated that the Respondent issued an eviction notice claiming termination. Without any definitive finding on the merits, the Court considered preservation of the property and occupation necessary to keep the intended arbitration meaningful, and ordered status quo with an express bar on eviction and dealings with the property.
Legal principles established
#- A court may grant an interim measure of protection under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act before arbitral proceedings have commenced, where a dispute capable of reference to arbitration exists and the subject matter is under threat.
- Failure by a corporate deponent to annex a board resolution does not, absent contrary evidence, render a suit incompetent where the deponent has ostensible authority.
Court orders
#- 1.The obtaining status quo shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the intended arbitral proceedings
- 2.The Respondent, whether by itself, its agents, servants or any person acting under its authority, shall not evict, remove or in any manner interfere with the Applicant’s current occupation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the intended arbitral proceedings
- 3.The Respondent shall not transfer, charge, lease, alienate, sell or otherwise deal with the suit property in a manner that would alter its ownership or legal status pending the hearing of the intended arbitration
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In-Vitro Diagnostics (EA) Ltd v Zuri Manor Villas Limited (Environment and Land Case E419 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2405 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2405/eng@2026-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.