A refund award can look like the end of a failed land purchase. But an award, a court order affecting it and an attempt to appeal that order are different stages. Reading only the first document can give a misleading picture of the recovery position.
In Rockstocks Holding Limited v Nanyuki Ranching Limited, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Application No. Nai E722 of 2024, ruling dated 3 October 2025, Justice D. K. Musinga dismissed an application for more time to seek leave to appeal. Costs went to Nanyuki Ranching. The ruling concerned access to a further appeal, not a new trial of the land sale. (Paragraphs 1 and 14.)
The award and the later court challenge
As recounted in the ruling, Rockstocks initiated arbitration over a December 2022 agreement to buy a parcel in Nanyuki. The arbitrator found the seller in breach and ordered a refund of KSh 70 million, plus interest and arbitration costs. The seller successfully challenged the award on public-policy grounds. In its later reasoning, the Court of Appeal referred specifically to the High Court setting aside part of the award. (Paragraphs 1 and 13.)
Those details matter together. The arbitration outcome should not be presented as an untouched, presently recoverable refund entitlement. Nor does this procedural ruling independently establish whether money was ultimately paid or what happened to the parcel.
Rockstocks filed an application for leave to appeal, but withdrew it at a December 2024 hearing after recognising that it had been filed late. Its subsequent motion sought an extension of time. The company attributed the delay to obtaining certified copies of the High Court ruling and order. (Paragraphs 2-4.)
Certification was not a reason to wait
The judge explained that rule 45 did not require a certified copy before lodging the leave application. Where practicable, an application should be accompanied by a copy of the decision and its reasons. If those documents were not filed with the application, the rule provided for filing and serving them at least twenty-four hours before the hearing. (Paragraphs 9-11.)
The respondent said a copy of the ruling had been uploaded to the Judiciary Case Tracking System on the day of delivery. The judge noted that this was undisputed and accepted that account. Waiting for certification therefore did not sufficiently explain the failure to apply within the required period. The court also noted a further eleven days between withdrawal of the earlier application and the new motion. (Paragraph 12.)
This was not a finding that every delay automatically defeats an application. The judge expressly distinguished the length of delay from whether there were good reasons for it. Here, the explanation failed. (Paragraphs 8-9 and 12.)
The arbitration appeal route had another hurdle
The ruling also questioned whether the proposed leave application met the exceptional threshold discussed in Nyutu Agrovet. Rockstocks had not shown exceptional reasons, a decision outside the relevant statutory setting-aside provisions, or the grave error or denial of justice described by the court. This was an additional reason against the application, not a rehearing of the contractual merits. (Paragraph 13.)
For buyers and advisers, the practical lesson is to follow the sequence of decisions rather than stop at a favourable award. Ask which part was challenged, what the court did, and whether the next procedural step was timely and effective. This account has not checked later proceedings, repayment or current ownership; it does not infer a county from the place name.
See how ArdhiScore works with parcel intelligence from available court, gazette and field evidence. Such information can support better questions about a transaction, but coverage varies and it cannot guarantee recovery, certify clean title or replace professional advice.