Saronera Ltd v Were & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E321 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 3944 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3944 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E321 OF 2022 CA OCHIENG, J JUNE 30, 2026 BETWEEN SARONERA LIMITED .............................................................................. PLAINTIFF AND MOHAMED ABDI WERE ............................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT HUSSEIN HASSAN AMIN ............................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT JOSEPHAT NAMADA SIMONI ..................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT RULING 1. 2. What is before the Court for determination is the 2nd Defendant’s Notice of Motion application dated the 4th May 2026 in which he seeks the following Orders: a. This Honorable Court be pleased to issue an Order for Reconciliation of Accounts in respect of all sums paid by the 2nd Defendant/Applicant to verify the total amount paid and the balance due and owing, to be conducted by the parties themselves or an auditor/accountant to be agreed upon by the parties, failing which to be appointed by the Court. b. The Honourable Court issues any other Orders as it may deem fit and just in the circumstances. c. The Plaintifi/Respondent bears the costs of this Application. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the 2nd Defendant’s supporting afidavit. He avers that following the Consent Judgment entered herein on 11th May 2023 for the sum of Ksh.20 million, he has been making payments to the Plaintifi in partial satisfaction of the said sum. Further, that he has been requesting reconciliation of accounts and receipts, but despite providing the same, the Plaintifi has still been denying payments. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3944/eng@2026-06-30 1
page 1 of 3
3. He points out that as of mid-March 2026, the Plaintifi’s Advocate sent receipts of Ksh.13,940,000.00, while demanding Ksh.6,060,000.00. and upon perusal of the receipts, he noted that various payments were omitted. He avers that the Plaintifi has requested a Warrant of Arrest to be re-issued for a sum of Ksh.6,060,000.00 and that he will be prejudiced if the same is issued as itdoes not accurately represent the true balance due and owing. 4. Neither the Plaintifi nor the 1st and 3rd Defendants filed responses. The 2nd Defendant did not file submissions. Analysis and Determination 5. I have considered the instant Notice of Motion including the supporting afidavit and the only issue for determination is whether the 2nd Defendant has made a case for an order of reconciliation of accounts between the Plaintifi and himself, in respect of the decretal sum of Kshs.20 million, arising from the Consent Judgment entered herein on 11th May 2023. 6. The 2nd Defendant contends that he has made several payments towards satisfaction of the decretal amount and that there is a dispute regarding the total sum paid and the outstanding balance. He further avers that some payments made by him have not been refiected in the receipts and accounts supplied by the Plaintifi thus he seeks to scrutinize them and discern the true position. 7. As earlier observed, neither the Plaintifi nor the 1st and 3rd Defendants filed any response. 8. On perusal of the Court record, I note the consent judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintifi on the 11th May, 2023, which is more than three years ago. The 2nd Defendant has failed to settle the full decretal sum but has since filed three applications dated 2nd October, 2023, 19th November, 2024 and 20th June, 2025 respectively, seeking various orders with the intention to delay settling the decretal sum. He has now filed the instant application, which is the fourth one, seeking for reconciliation of accounts between the Plaintifi and himself. 9. In the case of In Re Ennio Limited [2009] KEHC 916 (KLR) the court while dealing with a similar matter held thus: “ …The applicant is playing poker with the judicial process, he has the receipts which acknowledge the payments he has so far made. He is not saying that there are payments which he has made and have not been acknowledged by way of receipt so for him to now come to court suggesting that accounts be taken is making a mockery of the steps he has so far taken towards honouring the terms of consent. Surely is there an error in the figures recorded in the receipts? That is not suggested.” 10. Based on the facts as presented while associating myself with the decision cited, I find that the 2nd Defendant’s prayer for an Order for reconciliation of accounts in respect of all sums he has paid including verification of the total amount paid and the balance due and owing, only seeks to delay the settlement of the decretal sum. 11. It is my considered view that the 2nd Defendant fully knows what payments he has made and is simply trying to abuse the Court process by filing a myriad of applications seeking to deny the Plaintifi the fruits of his judgement. Further, he has not indicated the alleged payments he made, which were omitted by the Plaintifi. 12. In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will proceed to dismiss it. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3944/eng@2026-06-30 2
page 2 of 3
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: Ms Opondo for Plaintifi Ms Nganga for 2nd Defendant Wanyagu for Namada for 3rd Defendant Court Assistant: Vena https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3944/eng@2026-06-30 3
page 3 of 3