Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNaivasha ELCL No. E007/2025· [2026] KEELC 3123 (KLR)

Kingsholme Limited v Kedong Ranch Limited (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3123 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 May 2026
MOM.C. Oundo
12,363 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~49 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court refused to send a property dispute to arbitration and found a company chairman in contempt for ignoring a court order.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Naivasha (Oundo, J) determines three applications arising from a dispute between Kingsholme Limited, a flower grower, and Kedong Ranch Limited, purchaser of 44.28 acres of the Plaintiff's land adjoining Lake Naivasha under a 2018 Agreement of Sale. The Plaintiff claims the Defendant is fencing off the 'Excluded Property' (a borehole, lagoon and service roads) over which it holds a registered easement. First, the court declined the Defendant's application to stay proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act. It held that the dispute is anchored on the 2018 Agreement for Sale, which contains no arbitration clause, and that the Defendant is a complete stranger to the Long-Term Lease and Grant of Easement executed between the Plaintiff and Mlasa Limited; by privity, the arbitration clauses could not be enforced by the Defendant and did not run with the servient land. The court asserted its exclusive original jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. Second, on the contempt application, the court found that a valid status quo order of 14th February 2025 (extended 10th March 2025) existed, that the Defendant had actual knowledge of it (knowledge dispenses with personal service), and that by entering the land on 17th March 2025 with workers and armed police and carrying out the impugned activities, the Defendant's Chairman, Stanley Kinyanjui, engaged in wilful defiance. He was found in contempt, the court indicating it would proceed to punish him, though no specific penalty was pronounced. Third, the interim injunction application was not determined on the merits; the Defendant was directed to file a response within 14 days and the Plaintiff a rejoinder within 7 days. Costs of both applications were awarded to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court should stay proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act

Holding

The application for referral was dismissed; the Defendant is a complete stranger to the Long-Term Lease and Grant of Easement containing the arbitration clauses, and the dispute is anchored on the 2018 Agreement for Sale which contains no arbitration clause

Reasoning

The court identified a three-tier contractual matrix: the 2018 Agreement for Sale (no arbitration clause), and the Long-Term Lease and Grant of Easement of 24th June 2019 executed between Kingsholme Limited and Mlasa Limited, a third party. Applying the privity doctrine and the Mlagui and Standard Group authorities, the court held the Defendant could not invoke arbitration clauses in agreements to which it was not a contracting party, and that the covenants did not run with the servient land.

p. 29
02

Whether the Defendant and its Chairman are in contempt of the status quo order of 14th February 2025

Holding

Stanley Kinyanjui was found in blatant, deliberate and intentional contempt of the status quo order

Reasoning

The court found a valid order existed and was extended; the Defendant had actual knowledge (service by email acknowledged by Notice of Appointment, and counsel present on 10th March 2025 when orders were extended). The Defendant entered the land on 17th March 2025 and engaged in the impugned activities while the order was in force. Belief that the lease expiry entitled it to possession was no defence; its remedy was to seek variation of the order, not self-help.

p. 37
03

Whether an injunction should issue on the Plaintiff's application dated 12th February 2025

Holding

The injunction application was not determined on the merits; directions were given for the Defendant to file a response

Reasoning

The Defendant never responded to the injunction application, having instead filed the arbitration application. Applying Article 50 on fair hearing, the court directed the Defendant to file its response within 14 days and the Plaintiff to file a rejoinder within 7 days, leaving the injunction to be determined thereafter.

p. 38

Legal principles established

#
  • An arbitration clause is a personal covenant that cannot be enforced by or against third parties who are non-signatories to the agreement containing it
  • A party who knows of a court order must obey it unless and until it is discharged, and cannot engage in self-help even where it believes the order irregular
  • Knowledge of a court order suffices to dispense with personal service for the purposes of contempt proceedings
  • The Environment and Land Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes touching on land ownership, boundaries and Article 40 protection of property

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2025 seeking a stay of proceedings and referral of the matter to arbitration is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.The Defendant's Chairman, Stanley Kinyanjui, is found in contempt of the court order of 14th February 2025 extended on 10th March 2025, and the court will proceed to punish him
  3. 3.The Defendant is directed to file its response to the injunction application dated 12th February 2025 within 14 days, and the Plaintiff shall have 7 days to file their rejoinder
  4. 4.The Plaintiff shall have costs of both the Applications
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Articles 40 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kingsholme Limited v Kedong Ranch Limited (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Naivasha ELCL No. E007/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3123/eng@2026-05-21

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