TENDER SAGA

High court stops ongoing works by Sarrai group at Mumias sugar

This is the second order being issued relating to the Mumias sugar lease.

In Summary

• Justice Wilfrida Okwany said that the case before her required halting the activities and actions that have been complained of in order to enable Sarrai and other respondents to file their responses.

• This is the second order being issued relating to the Mumias sugar lease.

Mumias Sugar Company Limited./file
Mumias Sugar Company Limited./file

The high court has this afternoon issued fresh orders stopping the ongoing works by Ugandan Firm Sarrai Group at Mumias Sugar Company.

Justice Wilfrida Okwany said that the case before her required halting the activities and actions that have been complained of in order to enable Sarrai and other respondents to file their responses.

However, the court said the order will operate for a limited 10 days.

This is the second order being issued relating to the Mumias sugar lease.

A Vihiga court on Thursday set aside an order issued on Tuesday allowing Ugandan firm Sarai Group to proceed with works at Mumias Sugar Company.

This is after Tumaz and Tumaz Enterprises brought to the attention of the court that there was a pending order issued by High Court in Nairobi that stopped Sarrai from going on with works at the sugar mill.

Kakamega county had moved to court last week seeking to stop Tumaz from interfering with the works of Sarrai and Mumias Sugar Company.

Justice William Musyoka issued orders against Tumaz, which gave Sarrai the green light to proceed with their works at the sugar mill.

However, the court has set the orders aside after it was informed that there was an order in Nairobi relating to the same issued earlier.

In his ruling, Judge Musyoka said he had been informed that there was an order dated December 29, 2021, between Sarrai and Tumaz which put a stay on the lease agreement.

“The order of stay in Nairobi HCJR/E178/2021 was not exhibited to the motion by Kakamega County Government when it was placed before me on January 11, 2022, yet the same was relevant to the extent that it related to the same lease that is the subject of the motion” the order reads.

Judge Musyoka further said the order should have been disclosed by the county, and since it cannot possibly be in operation at the time with the order that he made, and to avoid duplication of orders, he, therefore, vacated his orders.

-Edited by B.Marita