1. Before the Court is the Chamber Summons application dated 13th January 2026 in which the Claimant seeks the following orders:
a. Spent.
b. That this Honourable Court be pleased to hear the Action in Rem dated 12th January 2026 and grant the following orders:
i. That pending the hearing and determination of the Action in Rem dated 12th January 2026, M/V Napolia be arrested and attached to secure the Claimant's claim as stated herein, together with interest at a rate to be determined by the Court.
ii. That judgment be entered against M/V Napolia, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture and apparel, in rem, in the sum of USD 5,114,975.80 (United States Dollars Five Million One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Five and Eighty Cents), together with interest at a rate to be determined by the Court.
iii. That judgment be entered against M/V Napolia, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture and apparel, in rem, for the costs of these proceedings, including all custodia legis expenses incurred in connection with the arrest, custody, preservation and safekeeping of the vessel during the pendency of these proceedings.
iv. That M/V Napolia be condemned and sold to satisfy any judgment entered in favour of the Claimant.
v. That this Honourable Court do order the immediate discharge of cargo destined for the Port of Zanzibar and release of the same to the Claimant and/or the Port Authorities at Zanzibar.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Emmanuel Kazimoto, a Director of the Claimant, sworn on 13th January 2026. He depones that the owners of M/V Napolia are in possession of steel products valued at USD 2,333,063.97 and cement products valued at USD 440,970 intended for the construction of a stadium in Zanzibar. He states that he was expressly authorized by Orkun Group to arrange the clearance and shipment of the said cargo from Tanga to Zanzibar.
3. Mr. Kazimoto further avers that on 12th October 2025 the registered owners of M/V Napolia entered into a charter arrangement with Pengume Marine Transport Limited, which subsequently engaged the Claimant for transportation of the cargo aboard the vessel. According to him, the arrangement involved a fixture recap under which M/V Napolia was engaged to load cargo at the Ports of Mtwara and Tanga and discharge the same at the Port of Zanzibar.
4. The dispute arose when the vessel allegedly failed to discharge the cargo at Zanzibar and instead discharged it at the Port of Mombasa. The Claimant contends that the owners of the vessel have refused to perform their obligations under the charter arrangements and have demanded additional freight and demurrage charges contrary to the terms agreed between the parties. The Claimant further alleges that the vessel owners have unjustly enriched themselves by retaining freight and other payments made either directly or through intermediaries.
5. The application is opposed through the affidavit of Mohamed Ali Borhani, a Director of Konvoy Shipping LLC, the registered owners of M/V Napolia. He states that Konvoy Shipping LLC entered into a Time Charter Party Agreement dated 13th October 2025 with Pengume Marine Transport Limited as charterers.
6. The Defendant contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction by virtue of Clause 41 of the Time Charter Party, which provides for arbitration as the exclusive dispute resolution mechanism, with the seat of arbitration being Dubai, United Arab Emirates, under the Rules of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
7. The Defendant further argues that there is no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the owners of M/V Napolia and that the Claimant therefore lacks the requisite locus standi to institute proceedings against the Defendant. It is further averred that the charterers defaulted in payment of hire amounting to USD 17,538,498 together with damages arising from detention of the vessel, thereby entitling the owners to withdraw the vessel from service and exercise a lien over the cargo pursuant to Clause 24 of the Charter Party.
8. According to the Defendant, a notice dated 31st December 2025 was issued requiring rectification of the payment default within three banking days. Upon failure to comply, the Defendant issued a withdrawal notice dated 2nd January 2026 terminating the Charter Party and exercising its contractual lien rights, resulting in discharge of the cargo at Mombasa rather than Zanzibar.
9. The Defendant also contends that the Claimant's own pleadings demonstrate that all payments were made to the charterers and not to the vessel owners, thereby confirming the absence of privity of contract between the parties. It is further alleged that the Claimant is engaged in forum shopping, having initiated parallel proceedings before the Tanzania Shipping Agencies Corporation while simultaneously pursuing the present action.
10. Having considered the application, the response thereto and the submissions on record, the following issues arise for determination:
a. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and application;
b. Whether the application is merited; and
c. Who should bear the costs of the application.
11. Jurisdiction is the foundation upon which judicial authority rests. Without jurisdiction, a court must immediately decline to proceed. This principle was authoritatively stated in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 where Nyarangi JA famously held that jurisdiction is everything and without it a court has no power to take one more step.
12. The Claimant's claim is predicated upon rights allegedly arising from the charter arrangements governing the voyage of M/V Napolia. Clause 41(b) of the Charter Party expressly provides:
"Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Charter Party, including its validity, interpretation, breach or termination, shall be finally settled by arbitration."
Clause 41(c) further provides:
"The seat of arbitration shall be Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The arbitration shall be administered by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of DIAC in force at the commencement of the arbitration."
13. Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act mandates the Court to respect and enforce valid arbitration agreements unless the agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, or unless there is no dispute falling within its scope.
14. Upon consideration of the material before the Court, it is evident that the dispute concerns rights and obligations arising from the charter arrangements governing the voyage. Such matters fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
15. Furthermore, the record before the Court does not disclose any substantive Action in Rem properly filed and maintained either in the physical court record or through the Court's electronic filing system. The application therefore lacks a competent substantive suit upon which the interlocutory relief sought can be anchored.
16. In any event, the principal prayers sought are final in nature, including entry of judgment, condemnation and judicial sale of the vessel. Such orders cannot ordinarily be granted at an interlocutory stage without a full hearing on the merits. To do so would occasion substantial prejudice to the Defendant and offend settled principles governing interlocutory relief.
17. Consequently, the Court finds that:
a. The dispute is subject to a binding arbitration agreement.
b. The proceedings before this Court are incompetent for want of a properly constituted substantive claim.
c. The reliefs sought are largely final in nature and incapable of being granted at the interlocutory stage.
18. Costs follow the event pursuant to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Claimant having failed in its application, the Defendant shall have the costs thereof.
19. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons dated 13th January 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
20. For avoidance of doubt the interim orders that were granted are hereby vacated,
21. The parties are at liberty to pursue any remedies available to them under the arbitration agreement.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS ..2 nd ...... DAY OF .June....... 2026.
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
In the presence of
MS Saisi for the Respondents
a. Spent.
b. That this Honourable Court be pleased to hear the Action in Rem dated 12th January 2026 and grant the following orders:
i. That pending the hearing and determination of the Action in Rem dated 12th January 2026, M/V Napolia be arrested and attached to secure the Claimant's claim as stated herein, together with interest at a rate to be determined by the Court.
ii. That judgment be entered against M/V Napolia, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture and apparel, in rem, in the sum of USD 5,114,975.80 (United States Dollars Five Million One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Five and Eighty Cents), together with interest at a rate to be determined by the Court.
iii. That judgment be entered against M/V Napolia, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture and apparel, in rem, for the costs of these proceedings, including all custodia legis expenses incurred in connection with the arrest, custody, preservation and safekeeping of the vessel during the pendency of these proceedings.
iv. That M/V Napolia be condemned and sold to satisfy any judgment entered in favour of the Claimant.
v. That this Honourable Court do order the immediate discharge of cargo destined for the Port of Zanzibar and release of the same to the Claimant and/or the Port Authorities at Zanzibar.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Emmanuel Kazimoto, a Director of the Claimant, sworn on 13th January 2026. He depones that the owners of M/V Napolia are in possession of steel products valued at USD 2,333,063.97 and cement products valued at USD 440,970 intended for the construction of a stadium in Zanzibar. He states that he was expressly authorized by Orkun Group to arrange the clearance and shipment of the said cargo from Tanga to Zanzibar.
3. Mr. Kazimoto further avers that on 12th October 2025 the registered owners of M/V Napolia entered into a charter arrangement with Pengume Marine Transport Limited, which subsequently engaged the Claimant for transportation of the cargo aboard the vessel. According to him, the arrangement involved a fixture recap under which M/V Napolia was engaged to load cargo at the Ports of Mtwara and Tanga and discharge the same at the Port of Zanzibar.
4. The dispute arose when the vessel allegedly failed to discharge the cargo at Zanzibar and instead discharged it at the Port of Mombasa. The Claimant contends that the owners of the vessel have refused to perform their obligations under the charter arrangements and have demanded additional freight and demurrage charges contrary to the terms agreed between the parties. The Claimant further alleges that the vessel owners have unjustly enriched themselves by retaining freight and other payments made either directly or through intermediaries.
5. The application is opposed through the affidavit of Mohamed Ali Borhani, a Director of Konvoy Shipping LLC, the registered owners of M/V Napolia. He states that Konvoy Shipping LLC entered into a Time Charter Party Agreement dated 13th October 2025 with Pengume Marine Transport Limited as charterers.
6. The Defendant contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction by virtue of Clause 41 of the Time Charter Party, which provides for arbitration as the exclusive dispute resolution mechanism, with the seat of arbitration being Dubai, United Arab Emirates, under the Rules of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
7. The Defendant further argues that there is no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the owners of M/V Napolia and that the Claimant therefore lacks the requisite locus standi to institute proceedings against the Defendant. It is further averred that the charterers defaulted in payment of hire amounting to USD 17,538,498 together with damages arising from detention of the vessel, thereby entitling the owners to withdraw the vessel from service and exercise a lien over the cargo pursuant to Clause 24 of the Charter Party.
8. According to the Defendant, a notice dated 31st December 2025 was issued requiring rectification of the payment default within three banking days. Upon failure to comply, the Defendant issued a withdrawal notice dated 2nd January 2026 terminating the Charter Party and exercising its contractual lien rights, resulting in discharge of the cargo at Mombasa rather than Zanzibar.
9. The Defendant also contends that the Claimant's own pleadings demonstrate that all payments were made to the charterers and not to the vessel owners, thereby confirming the absence of privity of contract between the parties. It is further alleged that the Claimant is engaged in forum shopping, having initiated parallel proceedings before the Tanzania Shipping Agencies Corporation while simultaneously pursuing the present action.
10. Having considered the application, the response thereto and the submissions on record, the following issues arise for determination:
a. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and application;
b. Whether the application is merited; and
c. Who should bear the costs of the application.
11. Jurisdiction is the foundation upon which judicial authority rests. Without jurisdiction, a court must immediately decline to proceed. This principle was authoritatively stated in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 where Nyarangi JA famously held that jurisdiction is everything and without it a court has no power to take one more step.
12. The Claimant's claim is predicated upon rights allegedly arising from the charter arrangements governing the voyage of M/V Napolia. Clause 41(b) of the Charter Party expressly provides:
"Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Charter Party, including its validity, interpretation, breach or termination, shall be finally settled by arbitration."
Clause 41(c) further provides:
"The seat of arbitration shall be Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The arbitration shall be administered by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of DIAC in force at the commencement of the arbitration."
13. Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act mandates the Court to respect and enforce valid arbitration agreements unless the agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, or unless there is no dispute falling within its scope.
14. Upon consideration of the material before the Court, it is evident that the dispute concerns rights and obligations arising from the charter arrangements governing the voyage. Such matters fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
15. Furthermore, the record before the Court does not disclose any substantive Action in Rem properly filed and maintained either in the physical court record or through the Court's electronic filing system. The application therefore lacks a competent substantive suit upon which the interlocutory relief sought can be anchored.
16. In any event, the principal prayers sought are final in nature, including entry of judgment, condemnation and judicial sale of the vessel. Such orders cannot ordinarily be granted at an interlocutory stage without a full hearing on the merits. To do so would occasion substantial prejudice to the Defendant and offend settled principles governing interlocutory relief.
17. Consequently, the Court finds that:
a. The dispute is subject to a binding arbitration agreement.
b. The proceedings before this Court are incompetent for want of a properly constituted substantive claim.
c. The reliefs sought are largely final in nature and incapable of being granted at the interlocutory stage.
18. Costs follow the event pursuant to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Claimant having failed in its application, the Defendant shall have the costs thereof.
19. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons dated 13th January 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
20. For avoidance of doubt the interim orders that were granted are hereby vacated,
21. The parties are at liberty to pursue any remedies available to them under the arbitration agreement.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS ..2 nd ...... DAY OF .June....... 2026.
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
In the presence of
MS Saisi for the Respondents