Saronera Limited v Mohamed Abdi Were, Hussein Hassan Amin & Josephat Namada Simoni
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court ruled that defendants who signed a consent judgment to refund Kshs.20 million remain liable unless they prove fraud or collusion.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 1st and 3rd Defendants should be discharged from these proceedings
Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st and 3rd Defendants could be discharged from proceedings on the basis of partial payment and an alleged understanding that the 2nd Defendant would bear the balance
No. They are bound by the Consent Judgment admitting joint liability to refund Kshs.20 million; discharging them would vary the Consent, and no ground for interfering with a consent judgment was established.
The Consent of 11th May 2023 recorded the Defendants' admission of liability to refund Kshs.20 million with liberty to execute on default. The Court, applying the principles in Brooke Bond Liebig v Mallya via Samson Munikah v Wedube Estates, held that a consent judgment binds parties and can only be varied on grounds such as fraud, collusion, misapprehension or ignorance of material facts. None was proved; the alleged side agreement was denied and would in any event vary the Consent.
Legal principles established
#- A consent judgment freely entered into is binding and cannot be varied or discharged except on grounds such as fraud, collusion, or ignorance of material facts
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st and 3rd Defendants' Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent power)
Relief refused
#Discharge and release of the 1st and 3rd Defendants from the proceedings with no further liability
They are bound by the Consent Judgment of 11th May 2023; discharging them would vary the Consent, and no vitiating factor was proved
Declaration that the balance of liability rests against the 2nd Defendant alone
The alleged understanding that the 2nd Defendant would pay the balance was denied and would vary the Consent
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In my view, discharging them from these proceedings amounts to varying the terms of the Consent.
I opine that if indeed they were not liable, then they should not have entered into the impugned Consent.
they have not demonstrated that the said Consent was obtained through fraud or collusion, or by an agreement contrary to the policy of the Court or if it was given without sufficient material facts or ignorance of material facts.
I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will dismiss it with costs to the Plaintiff.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 5th October 2026 but cites a decision said to have been delivered 14 May 2026; also application dated 3rd October 2025 within a 2022 suit - dates appear internally inconsistent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Saronera Limited v Mohamed Abdi Were, Hussein Hassan Amin & Josephat Namada Simoni", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E321 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6161/eng@2026-10-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.