RULING
1. The Claimants/Applicants, who describe themselves as former crew members of the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA”, IMO No. 8915005, instituted a claim in rem against the defendants by way of an in rem claim form, as set out in Practice Direction 61, which provides for Admiralty claims.
2. The particulars of the claim are that they served aboard the vessel in capacities and for periods evidenced by their respective written employment contracts and crew records.
3. They allege that their contracts were entered into with East Africa Ship Link Management Limited, acting as the vessel’s ship manager or agent on behalf of the vessel’s owners and/or operators.
4. The Claimants allege they are owed wage arrears accrued during their service aboard the fishing vessel.
5. The Claimants allege that the wage arrears were acknowledged in meetings and correspondence involving the vessel’s agents, the Kenya Maritime Authority, the Seafarers’ Union of Kenya and members of the crew of the vessel.
6. The Claimants/Applicants allege that they are owed an aggregate principal sum of USD 63,727.88.
7. They allege that their claims for wages earned as master and crew of the vessel give rise to maritime liens against the vessel and are enforceable by an action in rem .
8. They allege that the claims remain unsatisfied despite acknowledgment and part-payments.
9. Contemporaneously with the institution of the claim, the Claimants/Applicants filed an interlocutory application under a certificate of urgency seeking ex-parte orders for a warrant of arrest to issue against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA” IMO No. 8915005 together with her equipment, apparel and appurtenances and for the vessel to remain under arrest until the Claimants' claims are paid, security satisfactory to the Court is furnished or further orders of the Court.
10. It is that interlocutory application that has come up for consideration and determination ex-parte before me at this stage pursuant to the applicable procedure.
11. The immediate question before the Court is whether, on the material placed before it, the Claimants/Applicants have established a sufficient jurisdictional and legal foundation for the commencement of an action in rem and the arrest of the Vessel.
12. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue which the Court must determine before proceeding to consider the substantive relief sought.
13. The Court of Appeal in the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KECA 48 (KLR) held that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in Kenya is equal to that possessed by the High Court in England.
14. The Court held that the High Court applies the same law and procedure as applies in England; the Court referred to Section 4 of the Judicature Act, cap. 8, of the laws of Kenya, which provides as follows:
4. (1) The High Court shall be a court of admiralty, and shall exercise admiralty jurisdiction in all matters arising on the high seas, or in territorial waters, or upon any lake or other navigable inland waters in Kenya.
(2) The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exercisable–(a)over and in respect of the same persons, things and matters, and in the same manner and to the same
extent, and(b)in accordance with the same procedure, as in the High Court in England, and shall be exercised in conformity with international laws and the comity of nations.
(3) In the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise all the powers which it possesses for the purpose of its other civil jurisdiction.
15. It follows that the question whether the present claim falls within the Court's admiralty jurisdiction must be considered by reference to section 4 of the Judicature Act, read together with the applicable English admiralty law and procedure.
16. In my view, there can be little doubt that a claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages earned in the course of service aboard that ship is an admiralty claim.
17. Section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, formerly known as the Supreme Court of 1981, provides for the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England and Wales.
18. Section 20 (1) provides that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be as follows, that is to say –
Jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the questions and claims mentioned in subsection (2)
Subsection (2) provides that the questions and claims referred to in subsection (1) (a) include
2 (o) any claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages (including any sum allotted out of wages or adjudged by a superintendent to be due by way of wages);
19. Section 21 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides for the mode of exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction: the relevant parts to the current claim being;
21 (3) provides that in any case in which there is a maritime lien or other charge on any ship, aircraft or other property for the amount claimed, an action in rem may be brought in the High Court against that ship, aircraft or property
(4) In the case of any such claim as is mentioned in section 20(2)(e) to (r), where—
(a) the claim arises in connection with a ship;
and (b) the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam (“the relevant person”) was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer of, or in possession or in control of, the ship, an action in rem may (whether or not the claim gives rise to a maritime lien on that ship) be brought in the High Court against—
that ship, if at the time when the action is brought the relevant person is either the beneficial owner of that ship as respects all the shares in it or the charterer of it under a charter by demise; or
any other ship of which, at the time when the action is brought, the relevant person is the beneficial owner as respects all the shares in it.
20. The claim before this Court is precisely of that nature. The Claimants/Applicants allege that they were members of the crew of the vessel, that they rendered service aboard it, and that wages earned during that service remain unpaid.
21. In so far as the nature of the claim is concerned, it is prima facie that the claim falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court.
22. Having established that the claim falls within the Court's admiralty jurisdiction, the next question is whether the facts pleaded disclose a proper basis upon which the claim may be brought against the vessel in rem.
23. Section 20(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confers Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of the claims specified in subsection (2). As already noted, section 20(2)(o) expressly includes a claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages.
24. Section 21 provides for the mode in which that jurisdiction may be exercised; of particular relevance is section 21(3), which provides that where there is a maritime lien or other charge upon a ship for the amount claimed, an action in rem may be instituted against that ship.
25. In the alternative, section 21(4) provides for an action in rem in respect of the claims specified in section 20(2)(e) to (r), subject to the statutory connecting factors concerning the person liable in personam and the ownership or chartering of the ship against which the action is brought.
26. The Claimants/Applicants rely principally upon the first of those jurisdictional routes: namely, the existence of a maritime lien attaching to the vessel in respect of unpaid crew wages.
27. The Kenyan statutory position is particularly clear; Section 105(1)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2009 provides that wages and other sums due to the master, officer and other members of the ship's complement in respect of their employment on the ship may be secured by maritime liens.
28. Section 105(2) further provides that, for purposes of that provision, “owner” includes, in relation to a ship, the charterer, manager or operator of the ship
29. Section 106 provides that, maritime liens under section 105 take priority over mortgages and preferential rights registered under the Act or arising under insolvency law, subject to the statutory exceptions. Section 107 further provides for the ranking of such liens
30. More significantly for present purposes, section 110 of the Merchant Shipping Act provides that, maritime liens under section 105 arise whether the claims secured by those liens are against the owner, demise or other charterer, manager or operator of the ship and, subject to section 112, remain attached to the ship notwithstanding a change of ownership or registration
31. The statute recognises crew wages as a category of claim capable of giving rise to a maritime lien and expressly preserves that lien against the ship notwithstanding changes in ownership or registration
32. On the facts pleaded in the present case, the Claimants/Applicants were members of the vessel's complement; they rendered services aboard the vessel pursuant to written employment arrangements; and they claim wages arising from that service
33. The claim falls squarely within section 105(1)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act.
34. The consequence of the foregoing is that the claimants have disclosed a statutory basis for proceeding against the vessel itself.
35. The next issue for consideration is on the Claimants/Applicants' prayer for arrest of the fishing vessel.
36. Part 61(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules of England provides that in a claim in rem a claimant may apply to have the property proceeded against arrested.
37. 61(2) provides that Practice Direction 61 sets out the procedure for applying for arrest
38. 61(3) provides that a party making an application for arrest must request a search to be made in the Register before the warrant is issued to determine whether there is a caution against arrest in force with respect to that property, and file a declaration in the form set out in Practice Direction 61.
39. Practice Direction 61 provides that an application for arrest must be in form ADM4, which must also contain an undertaking, accompanied by a declaration in form ADM5.
40. It is provided in Practice Direction 61.5.2 that when a court receives an application for arrest that complies with the rules and the practice direction, the court will issue an arrest warrant.
41. Practice direction 61.5.3 provides that the declaration required by rule 61.5 (3)(b) must be verified by a statement of truth and must state in every claim, the nature of the claim or counterclaim and that it has not been satisfied and if it arises in connection with a ship, the name of that ship, her port of registry, the amount of security sought if any, and if made under section 21(4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the name of the person who would be liable on the claim if it were not commenced in rem, that the person was the right to bring the claim arose the owner or charteree of or in possession or in control of the ship in connection with which the claim arose and that at the time the claim form was issued the person was either the beneficial owner of all the shares in the ship in respect of which the warrant is required.
42. The Court of Appeal in the case of Owner of Motor Vessel “Mirembe Judith” v Jade International Shipping Line DMC [2023] KECA 452 (KLR) emphasized the need for scrupulous compliance with the procedural requirements of the applicable procedural rules before issuance of warrants of arrest of a shipping vessel. The court held as follows;
In our view, the procedure for arrest of the ship is clearly illustrated in part 61 of the Civil Procedure Rules of England and practice direction 61.5. The remedy of arrest of ship is akin to mareva injunctions in civil proceedings, the difference being that whereas the former is a remedy in rem, the latter is a remedy in personam. This court in Kuria Kanyoko T/A Amigos Bar & Restaurant v Francis Kinuthia Nderu & others [1988] KLR 169; [1988-92] 2 KAR 126; [1986-1989] EA 237 detailed the circumstances under which such remedies ought to be issued. In our view, considering the consequences that follow the issuance of such orders, the prescribed procedure for their issuance ought to be scrupulously complied with in order to prevent persons who might abuse the said procedure in order to gain undeserved forensic advantage and compel the owner of a ship to settle an otherwise undeserved claim. One of the requirements before a warrant of arrest is issued, as provided in part 61.5(3)(a) of the English Civil Procedure Rules, is that a party making an application for arrest must request a search to be made in the register before the warrant is issued to determine whether there is a caution against arrest in force. That is a condition precedent that must be complied with before a warrant of arrest can issue. It is clear that it was not complied with in this case. Being a condition precedent and considering the drastic consequences that follow upon the issuance of a warrant of arrest of a ship, it is our considered view that it cannot be wished away by simply being termed as “the discrepancy in the dates” the way it was termed in the impugned ruling. A rule of procedure, particularly where the procedure in question is a special procedure as in cases where what is sought is the arrest of a ship, ought to be taken seriously. ….We accordingly find that the failure to take a necessary step in the procedure for issuance of the warrants of arrest without any reason being proffered for non-compliance, ought to nullify the proceedings leading to the same.
43. In the instant application, the Claimants/Applicants have furnished a claim form in rem ADM1, made an application for arrest with the required undertaking in form ADM4, filed a declaration in support of arrest verified by a statement of truth in form ADM5 wherein the requisite particulars have been disclosed and supplied documents evidencing their claim against the vessel.
44. The Claimants/Applicants have also requested for a search to be made in the Register before the warrant is issued.
45. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Claimants/Applicants have met the procedural requirements for seeking an arrest warrant against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA”.
46. The next question is whether there is a properly constituted maritime claim sufficient to justify preservation of the res as security pending determination of the claim, as the arrest is supposed to be limited to that sole purpose.
47. At this stage of the proceedings, it is not appropriate to make definitive findings on the claim.
48. I find that the Claimants/ Applicants have placed before the Court sufficient documentary evidence establishing, prima facie , that they served as master and members of the crew of the fishing vessel, “FV TIJARA,” that their contractual wages became due and payable and that specified sums remain outstanding, and that to secure their claim, issuance of a warrant of arrest against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA” is merited.
I therefore order as follows;
A. A warrant of arrest does issue against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA” IMO No. 8915005 together with her equipment, apparel and appurtenances.
B. That before the warrant of arrest is issued, the Admiralty Registry is to search the caveat Register and record whether a caveat against arrest is in force in respect of the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA”.
C. The Admiralty Marshal is authorised to arrest and take the vessel into custody.
D. That the Claimants/Applicant are to pay all fees and expenses lawfully incurred by the Admiralty Marshal or on the Marshal’s behalf in the execution of the warrant of arrest herein.
E. The parties are granted liberty to apply.
F. The claim form and all relevant pleadings be served upon the defendant/s within the next 14 days
G. The matter be mentioned on 5 th October 2026.
Dated and signed at Mombasa this 21 st of September, 2026
Page 2 of 2
1. The Claimants/Applicants, who describe themselves as former crew members of the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA”, IMO No. 8915005, instituted a claim in rem against the defendants by way of an in rem claim form, as set out in Practice Direction 61, which provides for Admiralty claims.
2. The particulars of the claim are that they served aboard the vessel in capacities and for periods evidenced by their respective written employment contracts and crew records.
3. They allege that their contracts were entered into with East Africa Ship Link Management Limited, acting as the vessel’s ship manager or agent on behalf of the vessel’s owners and/or operators.
4. The Claimants allege they are owed wage arrears accrued during their service aboard the fishing vessel.
5. The Claimants allege that the wage arrears were acknowledged in meetings and correspondence involving the vessel’s agents, the Kenya Maritime Authority, the Seafarers’ Union of Kenya and members of the crew of the vessel.
6. The Claimants/Applicants allege that they are owed an aggregate principal sum of USD 63,727.88.
7. They allege that their claims for wages earned as master and crew of the vessel give rise to maritime liens against the vessel and are enforceable by an action in rem .
8. They allege that the claims remain unsatisfied despite acknowledgment and part-payments.
9. Contemporaneously with the institution of the claim, the Claimants/Applicants filed an interlocutory application under a certificate of urgency seeking ex-parte orders for a warrant of arrest to issue against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA” IMO No. 8915005 together with her equipment, apparel and appurtenances and for the vessel to remain under arrest until the Claimants' claims are paid, security satisfactory to the Court is furnished or further orders of the Court.
10. It is that interlocutory application that has come up for consideration and determination ex-parte before me at this stage pursuant to the applicable procedure.
11. The immediate question before the Court is whether, on the material placed before it, the Claimants/Applicants have established a sufficient jurisdictional and legal foundation for the commencement of an action in rem and the arrest of the Vessel.
12. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue which the Court must determine before proceeding to consider the substantive relief sought.
13. The Court of Appeal in the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KECA 48 (KLR) held that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in Kenya is equal to that possessed by the High Court in England.
14. The Court held that the High Court applies the same law and procedure as applies in England; the Court referred to Section 4 of the Judicature Act, cap. 8, of the laws of Kenya, which provides as follows:
4. (1) The High Court shall be a court of admiralty, and shall exercise admiralty jurisdiction in all matters arising on the high seas, or in territorial waters, or upon any lake or other navigable inland waters in Kenya.
(2) The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exercisable–(a)over and in respect of the same persons, things and matters, and in the same manner and to the same
extent, and(b)in accordance with the same procedure, as in the High Court in England, and shall be exercised in conformity with international laws and the comity of nations.
(3) In the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise all the powers which it possesses for the purpose of its other civil jurisdiction.
15. It follows that the question whether the present claim falls within the Court's admiralty jurisdiction must be considered by reference to section 4 of the Judicature Act, read together with the applicable English admiralty law and procedure.
16. In my view, there can be little doubt that a claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages earned in the course of service aboard that ship is an admiralty claim.
17. Section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, formerly known as the Supreme Court of 1981, provides for the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England and Wales.
18. Section 20 (1) provides that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be as follows, that is to say –
Jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the questions and claims mentioned in subsection (2)
Subsection (2) provides that the questions and claims referred to in subsection (1) (a) include
2 (o) any claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages (including any sum allotted out of wages or adjudged by a superintendent to be due by way of wages);
19. Section 21 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides for the mode of exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction: the relevant parts to the current claim being;
21 (3) provides that in any case in which there is a maritime lien or other charge on any ship, aircraft or other property for the amount claimed, an action in rem may be brought in the High Court against that ship, aircraft or property
(4) In the case of any such claim as is mentioned in section 20(2)(e) to (r), where—
(a) the claim arises in connection with a ship;
and (b) the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam (“the relevant person”) was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer of, or in possession or in control of, the ship, an action in rem may (whether or not the claim gives rise to a maritime lien on that ship) be brought in the High Court against—
that ship, if at the time when the action is brought the relevant person is either the beneficial owner of that ship as respects all the shares in it or the charterer of it under a charter by demise; or
any other ship of which, at the time when the action is brought, the relevant person is the beneficial owner as respects all the shares in it.
20. The claim before this Court is precisely of that nature. The Claimants/Applicants allege that they were members of the crew of the vessel, that they rendered service aboard it, and that wages earned during that service remain unpaid.
21. In so far as the nature of the claim is concerned, it is prima facie that the claim falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court.
22. Having established that the claim falls within the Court's admiralty jurisdiction, the next question is whether the facts pleaded disclose a proper basis upon which the claim may be brought against the vessel in rem.
23. Section 20(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confers Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of the claims specified in subsection (2). As already noted, section 20(2)(o) expressly includes a claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages.
24. Section 21 provides for the mode in which that jurisdiction may be exercised; of particular relevance is section 21(3), which provides that where there is a maritime lien or other charge upon a ship for the amount claimed, an action in rem may be instituted against that ship.
25. In the alternative, section 21(4) provides for an action in rem in respect of the claims specified in section 20(2)(e) to (r), subject to the statutory connecting factors concerning the person liable in personam and the ownership or chartering of the ship against which the action is brought.
26. The Claimants/Applicants rely principally upon the first of those jurisdictional routes: namely, the existence of a maritime lien attaching to the vessel in respect of unpaid crew wages.
27. The Kenyan statutory position is particularly clear; Section 105(1)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2009 provides that wages and other sums due to the master, officer and other members of the ship's complement in respect of their employment on the ship may be secured by maritime liens.
28. Section 105(2) further provides that, for purposes of that provision, “owner” includes, in relation to a ship, the charterer, manager or operator of the ship
29. Section 106 provides that, maritime liens under section 105 take priority over mortgages and preferential rights registered under the Act or arising under insolvency law, subject to the statutory exceptions. Section 107 further provides for the ranking of such liens
30. More significantly for present purposes, section 110 of the Merchant Shipping Act provides that, maritime liens under section 105 arise whether the claims secured by those liens are against the owner, demise or other charterer, manager or operator of the ship and, subject to section 112, remain attached to the ship notwithstanding a change of ownership or registration
31. The statute recognises crew wages as a category of claim capable of giving rise to a maritime lien and expressly preserves that lien against the ship notwithstanding changes in ownership or registration
32. On the facts pleaded in the present case, the Claimants/Applicants were members of the vessel's complement; they rendered services aboard the vessel pursuant to written employment arrangements; and they claim wages arising from that service
33. The claim falls squarely within section 105(1)(a) of the Merchant Shipping Act.
34. The consequence of the foregoing is that the claimants have disclosed a statutory basis for proceeding against the vessel itself.
35. The next issue for consideration is on the Claimants/Applicants' prayer for arrest of the fishing vessel.
36. Part 61(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules of England provides that in a claim in rem a claimant may apply to have the property proceeded against arrested.
37. 61(2) provides that Practice Direction 61 sets out the procedure for applying for arrest
38. 61(3) provides that a party making an application for arrest must request a search to be made in the Register before the warrant is issued to determine whether there is a caution against arrest in force with respect to that property, and file a declaration in the form set out in Practice Direction 61.
39. Practice Direction 61 provides that an application for arrest must be in form ADM4, which must also contain an undertaking, accompanied by a declaration in form ADM5.
40. It is provided in Practice Direction 61.5.2 that when a court receives an application for arrest that complies with the rules and the practice direction, the court will issue an arrest warrant.
41. Practice direction 61.5.3 provides that the declaration required by rule 61.5 (3)(b) must be verified by a statement of truth and must state in every claim, the nature of the claim or counterclaim and that it has not been satisfied and if it arises in connection with a ship, the name of that ship, her port of registry, the amount of security sought if any, and if made under section 21(4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the name of the person who would be liable on the claim if it were not commenced in rem, that the person was the right to bring the claim arose the owner or charteree of or in possession or in control of the ship in connection with which the claim arose and that at the time the claim form was issued the person was either the beneficial owner of all the shares in the ship in respect of which the warrant is required.
42. The Court of Appeal in the case of Owner of Motor Vessel “Mirembe Judith” v Jade International Shipping Line DMC [2023] KECA 452 (KLR) emphasized the need for scrupulous compliance with the procedural requirements of the applicable procedural rules before issuance of warrants of arrest of a shipping vessel. The court held as follows;
In our view, the procedure for arrest of the ship is clearly illustrated in part 61 of the Civil Procedure Rules of England and practice direction 61.5. The remedy of arrest of ship is akin to mareva injunctions in civil proceedings, the difference being that whereas the former is a remedy in rem, the latter is a remedy in personam. This court in Kuria Kanyoko T/A Amigos Bar & Restaurant v Francis Kinuthia Nderu & others [1988] KLR 169; [1988-92] 2 KAR 126; [1986-1989] EA 237 detailed the circumstances under which such remedies ought to be issued. In our view, considering the consequences that follow the issuance of such orders, the prescribed procedure for their issuance ought to be scrupulously complied with in order to prevent persons who might abuse the said procedure in order to gain undeserved forensic advantage and compel the owner of a ship to settle an otherwise undeserved claim. One of the requirements before a warrant of arrest is issued, as provided in part 61.5(3)(a) of the English Civil Procedure Rules, is that a party making an application for arrest must request a search to be made in the register before the warrant is issued to determine whether there is a caution against arrest in force. That is a condition precedent that must be complied with before a warrant of arrest can issue. It is clear that it was not complied with in this case. Being a condition precedent and considering the drastic consequences that follow upon the issuance of a warrant of arrest of a ship, it is our considered view that it cannot be wished away by simply being termed as “the discrepancy in the dates” the way it was termed in the impugned ruling. A rule of procedure, particularly where the procedure in question is a special procedure as in cases where what is sought is the arrest of a ship, ought to be taken seriously. ….We accordingly find that the failure to take a necessary step in the procedure for issuance of the warrants of arrest without any reason being proffered for non-compliance, ought to nullify the proceedings leading to the same.
43. In the instant application, the Claimants/Applicants have furnished a claim form in rem ADM1, made an application for arrest with the required undertaking in form ADM4, filed a declaration in support of arrest verified by a statement of truth in form ADM5 wherein the requisite particulars have been disclosed and supplied documents evidencing their claim against the vessel.
44. The Claimants/Applicants have also requested for a search to be made in the Register before the warrant is issued.
45. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Claimants/Applicants have met the procedural requirements for seeking an arrest warrant against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA”.
46. The next question is whether there is a properly constituted maritime claim sufficient to justify preservation of the res as security pending determination of the claim, as the arrest is supposed to be limited to that sole purpose.
47. At this stage of the proceedings, it is not appropriate to make definitive findings on the claim.
48. I find that the Claimants/ Applicants have placed before the Court sufficient documentary evidence establishing, prima facie , that they served as master and members of the crew of the fishing vessel, “FV TIJARA,” that their contractual wages became due and payable and that specified sums remain outstanding, and that to secure their claim, issuance of a warrant of arrest against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA” is merited.
I therefore order as follows;
A. A warrant of arrest does issue against the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA” IMO No. 8915005 together with her equipment, apparel and appurtenances.
B. That before the warrant of arrest is issued, the Admiralty Registry is to search the caveat Register and record whether a caveat against arrest is in force in respect of the fishing vessel “FV TIJARA”.
C. The Admiralty Marshal is authorised to arrest and take the vessel into custody.
D. That the Claimants/Applicant are to pay all fees and expenses lawfully incurred by the Admiralty Marshal or on the Marshal’s behalf in the execution of the warrant of arrest herein.
E. The parties are granted liberty to apply.
F. The claim form and all relevant pleadings be served upon the defendant/s within the next 14 days
G. The matter be mentioned on 5 th October 2026.
Dated and signed at Mombasa this 21 st of September, 2026
Page 2 of 2