Bamburi Cement risks asset auctions over a cash claim for 224 tonnes of cement that were not delivered to a Chinese contractor eight years ago.
Bamburi says GPS data from the transporter’s truck showed that the vehicle never entered Chinese contractor China Communications Construction Company (CCCC)’s Kimuka, Kajiado site, prompting the cement maker to recover Sh3.9 million paid to its transport firm, Masai Kenya Ltd.
Masai Kenya disputed the explanation and secured a judgment against Bamburi at a Nairobi magistrate court in March 2025.
However, the High Court has stopped execution after finding that Bamburi’s appeal raises arguable questions over GPS records, delivery notes and the transport agreement.
Bamburi contended that Masai Kenya, through Betabase Auctioneers, had commenced execution of the lower court judgment and proclaimed its movable assets, including its essential tools of trade.
Masai Kenya was contracted to transport Bamburi cement. The contested consignments were allegedly delivered to CCCC at Kimuka between April and July 2018.
Bamburi told the trial court that CCCC later reported that about 224.7 tonnes had not been received. It said investigations included GPS tracking of the truck.
According to Bamburi, the data showed the truck did not enter the customer’s premises.
Masai Kenya sued, leading to a judgment by a Principal Magistrate on March 14, 2025, awarding the transport firm Sh4.4 million. The trial court relied on Masai Kenya’s delivery notes and found Bamburi had not sufficiently established fraud or theft.
Bamburi appealed, challenging the interpretation of the transport agreement, treatment of GPS evidence and delivery notes.
“The applicant has also demonstrated sufficient circumstances to warrant preservation of the status quo, particularly having regard to the proclamation of operational assets,” the High Court ruled.
At the same time, the respondent’s interests can be protected through security,” t, granting the application.
The decision means Masai Kenya and its auctioneers cannot attach, remove or sell Bamburi’s proclaimed movable assets while the appeal is pending.
Execution documents put the amount claimed at about Sh7.1 million, including interest, costs and other execution amounts.
The court ordered Bamburi to deposit 50 per cent of the decretal sum. Bamburi had already deposited Sh2.2 million in May 2025, an amount that Masai Kenya argued was insufficient because execution was based on the higher figure.
The judge rejected that argument and found that Bamburi obtained an invoice from the Court for Sh2.2 million and paid the said amount.
The court found a real risk of prejudice because the assets were said to be essential to Bamburi’s operations.
‘If such assets were sold before the appeal is determined, the resulting disruption may not be adequately remedied by a subsequent order for repayment of money,’ the judge said.
The court stressed that finding an appeal arguable did not determine its outcome. It declined Bamburi’s request to nullify the decree and warrants over alleged procedural breaches.
‘I therefore decline to set aside the decree or the warrants solely on the basis of the alleged non-compliance with Order 21 Rule 8,’ the court said.