https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9432

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION** **HCCOMM MISC. APPLICATION NO. E310 OF 2026** **STANMORE HOLDINGS LIMITED ...................................... 1ST APPLICANT** **BE FORWARD CO. LIMITED ........................................... 2ND APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **JULIUS MWANGI KANAKE .................................................. RESPONDENT** **AND** **KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY ................................. 1ST INTERESTED PARTY** **KENYA BUREAU OF STANDARDS ...................... 2ND INTERESTED PARTY** **KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY ......................... 3RD INTERESTED PARTY** **RULING** **Introduction** 1. For determination is the Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2026 in which the Applicants seek, principally, orders authorizing amendment of **Bill of Lading No. BF00814316** and the Cargo Manifest relating to motor vehicle registration particulars described as a used **Land Rover/Range Rover Sport, Chassis No. SALWA2EV6HA67770**6, currently lying at the Port of Mombasa. 2. The Applicants further seek orders directing amendment of the consignee details from the Respondent, **Julius Mwangi Kanake**, to one **Sammy Musyoki Yenge** and restraining the Respondent from interfering with the vehicle. 3. The application is supported by the affidavit of **Luqman Yusuf Abdallah,** sworn on 12th March 2026. The deponent states that the 2nd Applicant sold the subject motor vehicle to the Respondent at a purchase price of USD 18,735; that only USD 5,630 was paid, leaving a balance of **USD 13,105;** that ownership was to pass only upon full payment; and that following the Respondent's default, the Applicants exercised their rights as unpaid sellers and procured an alternative buyer. 4. The 2nd Interested Party, Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), filed a Replying Affidavit stating that it has no proprietary or contractual interest in the dispute and that its role is limited to enforcement of standards and inspection requirements under the Standards Act and the relevant Legal Notice. 5. The Interested Parties, Kenya Revenue Authority and the Kenya Ports Authority, did not file any response. **Analysis and Determination** 1. Having perused the application and the response thereto, I find that the sole issue for determination is whether the application is merited. 2. The material before the Court shows that the 2nd Applicant sold the subject motor vehicle to the Respondent for **USD 18,735.** The invoice exhibited by the Applicants reflects that purchase price. 3. The application is brought under **Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act**, **Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules** and **section 43(8) of the East African Community Customs Management Act (EACCMA)**. Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act enjoin the Court to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes, while section 3A preserves the Court's inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process. 4. The Applicants' evidence further shows that the Respondent paid USD 5,630, leaving an outstanding balance of USD 13,105. Demand notices and cancellation communications exhibited by the Applicants indicate that the Respondent was repeatedly called upon to settle the balance but failed to do so within the stipulated timelines. 5. The Court is also persuaded by the Applicants' deposition that the sale agreement expressly reserved transfer of ownership until full payment of the purchase price. On the material presented, the Applicants retained a proprietary interest in the vehicle pending completion of payment. 6. The evidence before the Court further shows that the vehicle remains uncleared at the Port of Mombasa and that the Applicants have possession and control of the relevant shipping documentation. The Bill of Lading and related manifest documents placed before the Court indicate that the vehicle had not been released to the Respondent. 7. In the circumstances disclosed by the application, the Applicants established a prima facie entitlement to invoke the remedies available to an unpaid seller, including stoppage of delivery and resale in mitigation of losses arising from the buyer's default. 8. As regards the position taken by KEBS, the Court agrees that the dispute is principally contractual and proprietary in nature. KEBS neither claims ownership of the vehicle nor participates in the commercial arrangements between the parties. Its statutory mandate remains intact irrespective of the ultimate consignee. 9. Having considered the material before the Court, I am satisfied that the Applicants established sufficient cause for the grant of the orders sought. The Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and its duty to do substantive justice justify the relief sought. 10. Consequently, on the evidence and submissions that were before the Court when the application fell due for determination, this Court would have been inclined to allow the Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2026. 11. However, before delivery of this ruling, the Respondent filed a Notice of Motion dated 24th June 2026 asserting that subsequent negotiations between the parties culminated in payment of the outstanding sum of USD 13,105 together with an additional USD 850 allegedly accepted by the Applicants. On that basis, the Respondent contends that the application dated 12th March 2026 has been overtaken by events and rendered spent. 12. The said application was filed only one day before delivery of this ruling. The allegations therein, if ultimately established, may substantially affect the propriety and continued necessity of the orders sought in the Applicants' motion. 13. In **Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal** [1982] **KLR 417**, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the Court has a wide discretion to make such orders as are necessary to preserve the ends of justice and to ensure that the rights of the parties are not rendered nugatory. Likewise, in **Board of Governors, Moi High School Kabarak & Another v Malcolm Bell** [2013] **eKLR**, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts possess inherent jurisdiction to make appropriate orders necessary for the administration of justice and to prevent abuse of the court process. 14. In the circumstances, although I am satisfied that the Applicants have established their case and are entitled to the orders sought, I consider it just and proportionate that the implementation of those orders be temporarily suspended pending the hearing and determination of the Respondent's subsequent application. 15. Accordingly, I issue the following orders: - 16. The Notice of Motion dated 12 March 2026 is hereby allowed. 17. Pursuant to sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, the implementation and operation of the orders granted herein are stayed and held in abeyance pending the hearing and determination of the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 24 June 2026. 18. Costs of the application dated 12th March 2026 shall abide the outcome of the Respondent's application dated 24th June 2026 19. It is so ordered **DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2026** **** **HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO *Judge of the High Court*** **In the Presence of:** *Moses C/A* *.………………for the Applicant* *……………for the Respondent*