Judge’s Advice: Anne Njeri Urged to Ditch Money-Heist Fantasies Amid Dismissal of Sh17bn Fuel Claim
Has Anne Njeri Njoroge, the entrepreneur embroiled in the contentious Sh17 billion diesel scandal, been viewing films?
Gossipa2z.com is unsure, but the High Court in Mombasa has advised her to refrain from watching money heist movies.
But why did the court feel the need to give her such advice?
Last year, Ms. Njoroge took her grievances to the Admiralty Court in Mombasa, alleging that she had been deceived regarding the 100,000 metric tons of diesel she had imported from Jeddah upon arrival at the Mombasa port.
Nevertheless, when allowed to present evidence substantiating her assertion of ownership regarding the cargo that arrived in the country aboard MV Haigui, the evidence she provided led the court to question the rationale behind her persistent insistence on claiming ownership of the said cargo.
Justice Kizito Magare, who oversaw the conflict, has concluded that there is no proof indicating the importation of said oil.
The court additionally observed that the documents provided by the woman through her company, Ann’s Import and Export Enterprises Ltd, clearly indicated that no oil could have been exported from Saudi Arabia.
The judge determined that none of the documents submitted by Ms. Njoroge demonstrate any transactions involving the acquisition, importation, or requisition of Diesel EN 590.
“The best I can describe the claimant claims that it was an amateurish attempt on a heist. The claimant should stop watching too many movies, especially the “money heist,” said Justice Kizito.
Evidence presented in the courtroom additionally indicates that the oil unloaded was Gas oil 50 parts per million Automotive Gas Oil (AGO), rather than Diesel EN 590. Additionally, the manifest submitted to the Kenya Revenue Authority pertained to AGO.
“The diesel never arrived in the country. The goods that Galana Energies Ltd purchased are different from the purported ones by Ann’s Import and Export Enterprises Ltd,” said the judge
The court observed that Ann’s Import and Export Enterprises Ltd, the claimant, lacked any infrastructure concerning the vessel and its cargo. Additionally, it emphasized that the disputed consignment with Galana Energies Ltd was distinct from what the claimant purported.
“They should file their case in Jeddah where they may have been misled or otherwise initiated the scheme to steal the oil. Diesel EN590 never arrived and was not aboard the motor tanker Haigui. This is a proper case to strike out. It cannot be saved by amendment or otherwise,” said the judge.
The court observed that the MV Haigui’s arrival and departure created a complex network of truths, connections, partial truths, deception, and schemes of an unprecedented scale in contemporary times.
“Not even the legendary Ali Capone and Others could have pulled stunts some of the parties were putting on,” said the judge.
Amidst these circumstances, the court observed that it was surrounded by more intensity and obscurity than clarity and enlightenment.
“The truth lay somewhere. Unfortunately, what happened on the fateful, October 11, 2023, will remain buried forever. I cannot fathom, encompass, and even understand the circumstances where one party is importing diesel and another petrol but shipping it in the same ship exclusively,” said the judge
ALSO READ:
- Whistleblower Reveals Ksh4 Billion Windfall for 7 Law Firms Advising IEBC
- Why Ruto & Gachagua Receive Ksh650K Housing Allowance Despite Living in State Residences
- Kenyan Citizens Plan Mass Boycott of President Ruto’s X Space, Opt for Parallel Session
- Gov’t Suspends Recruitment in Public Service
- Nairobi County Lost Ksh 70 Million Daily Due to Protests, Governor Sakaja
Ultimately, the court observed that Ms. Njoroge failed to provide any evidence of payment, acquisition, order placement, purchase agreement, or any substantiated transaction.
As a result, there was no proof indicating that it had obtained ownership from the seller, and there were no letters of credit available for the specific cargo unloaded from the vessel.
Galana Energies asserted that it had brought in AGO which was unloaded at the port. Both the company and the Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) emphasized that the oil industry is tightly regulated, necessitating licenses for oil importation into Kenya.
It was reported that Galana imported oil intended for use within Kenya as well as for export purposes.
It was mentioned that the sector encompasses Jet A-1, dual-purpose kerosene, diesel, and AGO. Hence, anyone intending to import these products needs to obtain licensing from the Energy and Petroleum Authority, a requirement the claimant failed to fulfill.
The court heard that the plaintiff lacked the necessary license, as only Galana Energies Ltd, Gulf Energy, and Oryx Energies were authorized importers. Additionally, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were purportedly fabricated.
It was discovered that the ship, Haigui, was not owned by the plaintiff, but instead was under the ownership of Holten Shipping Limited, a limited liability partnership.
However, Galana was discovered to possess a series of documents, such as a financing agreement with Kenya Commercial Bank, a certificate verifying quality and quantity, a certificate of origin, a cargo manifest, and a bill of lading. These documents were appropriately signed by the necessary individuals and valid parties.
“It is my considered view that the claimant was not licensed by the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA), a fact which it is stated on oath that EPRA confirmed that they had not licensed Ann’s Import. They also stated that their cargo was Gasoil not Diesel,” said the judge
Justice Kizito also pointed out that it’s improbable for illegally imported oil worth Sh17 billion to enter the country. He added that the absence of all the necessary licenses for the applicant indicates that any such actions are invalid.
The original application stated that on October 9, 2023, the cargo manifest showed the vessel named Rowan, captained by Dougukan Bulut, and it was loaded in Jeddah on the same day.
The paperwork revealed that the sender and receiver were identical, with the individual filing the claim signing the bill of lading in both roles: as the sender and as the importer.
“There is no question that the bill of lading is fictitious. If the cargo was bought on board, the bills of lading could not be issued by the purchaser,” said the judge.
The court additionally determined that the vessel was registered under the Liberian flag and lacked a representative in the local area, as indicated by the absence of a reported commercial manager on board with proper authorization.
“Courts are not morons. How does a party who does not produce or process oil, issue a bill of lading? At least the Master should have issued a Master’s bill of lading. Nowhere in the crucial documents that I have seen, does the alleged ship’s master Bulut sign any of the necessary documents including the shipping receipt and the master’s bill of lading,” said the judge.
With this, Justice Kizito dismissed Ms Njoroge’s firm case and instructed her company to pay Sh22.4 million as the cost of the case.
Judge’s Advice: Anne Njeri Urged to Ditch Money-Heist Fantasies Amid Dismissal of Sh17bn Fuel Claim