Buyers often concentrate on the parcel, the price and the completion date. The dispute-resolution clause may receive less attention because it seems relevant only if something goes wrong. Yet that clause can shape the first major argument when a transaction reaches litigation.
Owinga v Lenana Gardens Limited [2025] KEELC 18536 (KLR), a ruling of the Environment and Land Court on 19 December 2025, concerned a preliminary objection based on an arbitration clause in a land sale agreement.
The case is useful precisely because it did not decide the underlying sale dispute. It shows a different category of exposure: the procedure and forum through which a buyer or seller must pursue a remedy.
What the parties argued
The defendant relied on clause 12 of the special conditions in an agreement dated 16 August 2016. It argued that the parties had agreed to arbitration and that the court action offended the agreed dispute-resolution process.
The plaintiff opposed the preliminary objection. Among other arguments, he said that an arbitration clause did not automatically remove the court's jurisdiction and that section 6 of the Arbitration Act contemplated an application for a stay and referral to arbitration. He argued that a stay, rather than striking out the suit, would be the proper course if the clause were to be relied upon.
These competing positions appear in the ruling, paragraphs 1-8. They are important qualifications, not incidental details to omit from a simple story about a buyer filing in the "wrong court".
The court upheld this preliminary objection
In paragraphs 13-17, the court treated the existence of the agreement and arbitration clause as uncontested and considered the question capable of determination at the preliminary stage. It regarded the clause as mandatory.
Paragraph 18 addressed the plaintiff's argument about a stay, noting that no application for a stay under section 6 was before the court. The court's reasoning on the agreed process continues through paragraphs 19-23.
Paragraph 24 upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit with costs to the defendant. The court did not, through that order, decide that the seller had performed every obligation, that the buyer had breached the agreement, or that either party held an unimpeachable title.
The outcome should remain tied to this ruling. It is not a universal instruction that every land sale containing an arbitration clause must be struck out rather than stayed. The wording of the agreement, statutory procedure, steps already taken and applicable law require an advocate's assessment.
Read the remedy before you need it
Before signing, ask your advocate to explain how the contract handles a dispute. Which matters fall within the clause? Is there a notice, negotiation or appointment process? Who appoints the arbitrator if the parties disagree, and what cost or timing implications follow from the agreed mechanism?
These questions do not establish that arbitration is inherently a bad choice. They establish whether the parties understand the choice they are making.
Keep the signed special conditions and any amendments with the main agreement. A payment receipt or booking form may not contain the whole dispute-resolution arrangement. Once a problem arises, obtain advice promptly before assuming that an ordinary lawsuit is the only route or that a contractual process can be ignored.
A parcel assessment is not contract advice
ArdhiScore can help organise available evidence and unresolved parcel questions, including the context of reported proceedings. Its role is not to interpret every contractual clause or select the correct legal forum.
For this kind of risk, the useful connection is between the land evidence and the transaction file: what remains uncertain about the parcel, which contractual promises address that uncertainty, and who must advise on enforcement?
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits alongside an advocate's review of the actual agreement. Screening does not guarantee recovery, prevent contractual disputes or preserve procedural deadlines.
This is educational analysis of the cited ruling. It is not legal advice, an assessment of the merits of the underlying sale, or confirmation of the absence of subsequent proceedings.