'
[1] The plaintiff filed this suit seeking, among other things, a declaration that a consignment of Sodium Benzoate shipped in certain specified containers and documented in a Bill of Lading No. 140500709382 is the plaintiff’s property and that the defendant has no right to the said consignment.
[2] The plaintiff also sought possession of the consignment for reshipment to a destination of its choice, amongst other prayers. Alongside the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for injunction seeking, among other prayers, that the 1st and 2nd interested parties be restrained from releasing the consignment to the defendant. Orders were also sought against the 3rd and 4th interested parties to restrain them from taking possession of the consignment.
[3] The plaintiff sought all these prayers in the suit and in the application because the defendant which is alleged to be the importer of the consignment, did not exist.
[4] Apparently, the defendant had promised to make payment for the goods upon delivery. Considering the plaintiff’s own claim that the defendant is a non-entity and, therefore, could not have imported the goods, I allowed the suit summarily. Subject to the conditions which are specified in my order of 30 July 2025, I allowed the plaintiff to take possession of its consignment for reshipment of a place of its choice other than Kenya.
[5] As noted in the prayers in the plaint, the plaintiff had sought a specific prayer amongst other prayers that, it wanted possession of the goods for reshipment.
[6] I allowed the prayers and ordered that the consignment should be re-shipped to any other place except Kenya. This was a conscious and deliberate decision considering the circumstances under which the consignment had arrived at the port of Mombasa.
[7] In an application dated 1September 2025, the plaintiff sought to vary the order and delete the words “shipment to a destination of its choice except Kenya”.
[8] The reason given was that the consignment was in danger of being wasted. Later the plaintiff filed an application dated 22 October 2025 asking the court to adopt a consent order whose effect is to allow the goods/consignment to be sold in Kenya. What the plaintiff is asking this court to do is to sanction the sale of the consignment to this country after the alleged failure of its contract with a non-existent company. This the court cannot do.
[9] It is enough that the court handed the plaintiff back its consignment. The consignment was never meant for this country in the first place and, therefore, there is no reason why the court should be looped into a scheme of disposing consignment in this country.
[10] I note that the consignment is not just any other consignment. It is a food preservative, amongst its other uses. And being of that character, there must be some elaborate procedures for the importation into the country of goods of that nature. They cannot be allowed on the local market merely because its intended importer has turned out to be a fraudster.
[11] For these reasons, I am not prepared to vary my orders of 30 July 2025.
'
[1] The plaintiff filed this suit seeking, among other things, a declaration that a consignment of Sodium Benzoate shipped in certain specified containers and documented in a Bill of Lading No. 140500709382 is the plaintiff’s property and that the defendant has no right to the said consignment.
[2] The plaintiff also sought possession of the consignment for reshipment to a destination of its choice, amongst other prayers. Alongside the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for injunction seeking, among other prayers, that the 1st and 2nd interested parties be restrained from releasing the consignment to the defendant. Orders were also sought against the 3rd and 4th interested parties to restrain them from taking possession of the consignment.
[3] The plaintiff sought all these prayers in the suit and in the application because the defendant which is alleged to be the importer of the consignment, did not exist.
[4] Apparently, the defendant had promised to make payment for the goods upon delivery. Considering the plaintiff’s own claim that the defendant is a non-entity and, therefore, could not have imported the goods, I allowed the suit summarily. Subject to the conditions which are specified in my order of 30 July 2025, I allowed the plaintiff to take possession of its consignment for reshipment of a place of its choice other than Kenya.
[5] As noted in the prayers in the plaint, the plaintiff had sought a specific prayer amongst other prayers that, it wanted possession of the goods for reshipment.
[6] I allowed the prayers and ordered that the consignment should be re-shipped to any other place except Kenya. This was a conscious and deliberate decision considering the circumstances under which the consignment had arrived at the port of Mombasa.
[7] In an application dated 1September 2025, the plaintiff sought to vary the order and delete the words “shipment to a destination of its choice except Kenya”.
[8] The reason given was that the consignment was in danger of being wasted. Later the plaintiff filed an application dated 22 October 2025 asking the court to adopt a consent order whose effect is to allow the goods/consignment to be sold in Kenya. What the plaintiff is asking this court to do is to sanction the sale of the consignment to this country after the alleged failure of its contract with a non-existent company. This the court cannot do.
[9] It is enough that the court handed the plaintiff back its consignment. The consignment was never meant for this country in the first place and, therefore, there is no reason why the court should be looped into a scheme of disposing consignment in this country.
[10] I note that the consignment is not just any other consignment. It is a food preservative, amongst its other uses. And being of that character, there must be some elaborate procedures for the importation into the country of goods of that nature. They cannot be allowed on the local market merely because its intended importer has turned out to be a fraudster.
[11] For these reasons, I am not prepared to vary my orders of 30 July 2025.
'