Case Analysis

Construction Lawyer and Advocate at Milimani High Court — Commercial & Tax Division, Nairobi: Replacement Contractor in Concise Projects

If you need a construction lawyer at Milimani High Court — Commercial & Tax Division, Nairobi, an advocate should review your documents and any deadline. This article analyses Concise Projects Ltd v Green View Villas Ltd, explains the court’s decision and identifies practical records to prepare for a review of your situation.

A Nairobi construction lawyer or project advocate reviewing a contractor’s removal should distinguish preserving evidence from stopping the project indefinitely. Concise Projects concerned ninety-nine villas, a terminated building contract and an unfinished final account. The court permitted construction to resume through another contractor, but only after the employer provided the ordered security. It also protected identified equipment and the contractual dispute-resolution process.

The project had a staged dispute mechanism

The parties executed a Joint Building and Construction Council agreement in September 2023 for the Green View Villas development. Clause 39 governed termination; clause 46 provided a sequence involving amicable settlement or mediation, adjudication and arbitration. In February 2026, the employer issued a termination notice alleging defective work and failure to comply with instructions, and demanded vacant possession.

Concise disputed the termination, initiated a dispute notice and sought interim protection under section 7 of the Arbitration Act. The court granted protection in March. The employer then applied to vary or discharge it, arguing that the contractual termination process permitted appointment of a replacement contractor and that continued suspension harmed the project and purchasers. Those were competing positions before the court, rather than a final adjudication of workmanship.

Stock-taking changed the need for a site restraint

After the initial orders, the parties conducted joint inspection, stock-taking and valuation activities. Equipment and materials were removed for safeguarding with their knowledge. Concise submitted a particularised final account in April claiming KSh 380,265,181.42 for work, delayed-payment interest, profit and financing exposure. The amount remained a claim; the ruling did not award it.

The court found the original apprehension legitimate because an uncontrolled handover could have compromised later measurement and valuation. It did not say the March protection had been wrongly obtained. However, the joint exercises and final account substantially addressed that evidential threat. The appropriate temporary remedy therefore required reassessment against the circumstances existing at the September hearing.

Protection shifted towards financial security

The judge considered that the remaining dispute concerned termination and its financial consequences. A continuing freeze on construction went beyond what was necessary to safeguard those claims. The court also considered construction-condition reports and the exposure of third-party purchasers who were outside the arbitration agreement. It accepted that prolonged suspension risked deterioration and escalating prejudice.

At the same time, the contractor’s financial position deserved protection. The employer had offered security for whatever amount might ultimately be found due. The ruling held it to that offer and preserved the integrity of the account-reconciliation process. It did not determine that either the contractor’s entire valuation or the employer’s allegations were correct.

Resumption depended on compliance with the order

Both applications were allowed in part. The employer could continue and complete the project using a contractor, architect, engineer or project manager, but that liberty took effect only upon compliance with the security order. Within fourteen days, the employer had to deposit the original title deed or a duly registered charge over the property into the joint custody of the parties’ advocates.

The employer, incoming contractor and their personnel were prohibited from interfering with or disposing of identified contractor property protected through the stock-taking exercise pending account reconciliation. The parties were directed to pursue clause 46, including adjudication and any subsequent arbitration. Security continued until conclusion of that process or variation by the relevant adjudicator or tribunal. Costs awaited its outcome.

Review handover evidence and the current security position

For a similar dispute, supply the complete building agreement, instructions, defect notices, termination correspondence and initial preservation order. Add joint inventories, photographs, valuation schedules and records showing where equipment went. Identify which items are owned, hired, consumed in the works or disputed; their treatment at handover may differ.

A Nairobi construction advocate also needs the final account, adjudication notices, evidence of title custody or a registered charge and subsequent tribunal directions. This ruling does not prove that the employer later complied or that the construction actually restarted. Its practical lesson is that protection can change as evidence is secured, while the contractor’s monetary claim and the buyers’ interest in completion remain distinct matters requiring a proportionate response.

Editorial analysis of the cited decision, checked on 5 October 2026. Practical document guidance is commentary; later orders may affect the current position.