Court allows investors to auction 26 vehicles over Sh158m owed by Chinese firms
Misryoum reports an appellate court in Mombasa approved an auction of vehicles tied to a Sh158m judgment owed by Chinese firms.
A Mombasa appellate court has cleared the way for investors to recover more than Sh158 million by auctioning vehicles and other property from a Chinese firm that failed to meet conditions set by the court.
The decision stems from a ruling in which Justice Wendy Micheni awarded Alfred Agunga Sh100,112,768, which later attracted interest, bringing the figure to Sh158,703,973.. Misryoum understands that the Chinese company had sought and obtained a stay, but the appeal court ultimately moved to set out what should happen if further security requirements were not met.
In this context, the judges at the appellate bench allowed Agunga to auction 25 vehicles and other properties tied to the case if the company did not provide the required insurance bond amount.. The court also indicated an alternative route: the company could instead deposit a bank guarantee equal to the decretal sum from a reputable bank acceptable to both sides, within the timeline set by the ruling.
A key detail in the court’s order is the strict deadline. The judges directed compliance within 30 days of the ruling, warning that failure would give Agunga the liberty to proceed with execution through auction.
Misryoum notes that the matter had been back-and-forth after Justice Micheni, on December 19, 2024, stayed the judgment pending deposits into an escrow account. That stay was tied to the Chinese company depositing the amount in escrow within 60 days.
The appellate decision also took into account communication about the bond requirement. The record shows CIC confirmed in a letter dated March 7, 2025 that it does not offer the specific bond services needed under the terms.
Agunga argued to the appellate court that the decretal sum would not cripple the Chinese company, pointing to profit figures shown in its January 2025 financials. He maintained that he had acted in good faith, while the Chinese firm repeatedly failed to comply with court directions.
Meanwhile, the appellate judges said the company did not take appropriate steps in good faith after receiving the update from CIC Insurance.. They rejected efforts to vary the consent terms at this stage to allow a different insurance provider, and indicated that the company’s position had not met the conditions agreed earlier.
Misryoum Insight: Court-backed execution steps like auction orders are often the point where legal deadlines turn into real-world consequences.. For investors and claimants, this kind of ruling signals that compliance conditions are not optional, and it can shape how parties negotiate security for large commercial debts.