Ainu Shamsi says DTB’s debt claim topped $47 million (KSh 6 billion), while the bank later put the outstanding amount at $17.1 million (2.2 billion).
Now the High Court has given administrators 30 days to reconcile the books and establish what the transport company actually owes.
A bitter financial fight between a transport company and its bank has taken another turn, with the High Court ordering a fresh debt reconciliation.
Justice Rhoda Rutto refused to halt the administration of Ainu Shamsi Hauliers Limited but gave administrators 30 days to examine its accounts.
The exercise could help explain a striking discrepancy between two debt figures presented during the dispute.
Ainu Shamsi says DTB claimed more than USD47.06 million (KSh 6.1 billion) and KSh30 million, a figure it strongly contests.
DTB, however, later told the court that the company owed USD17.146 million (KSh 2.2 billion) and KSh108.54 million, excluding accrued interest.
The judge did not endorse either figure, instead finding a genuine dispute requiring further scrutiny.
That distinction matters because the court’s order does not establish that Ainu Shamsi owes either amount.
Instead, Justice Rutto has ordered administrators to determine the company’s actual financial position.
The Insolvency Petition was filed in May this year after Ainu Shamsi challenged DTB’s appointment of joint administrators.
They are Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli, whose appointment took effect on May 14, 2026.
Ainu Shamsi says it only learnt about the appointment through an email sent on May 26.
A newspaper notice followed the next day, deepening the company’s objections to the administration process.
Debt Dispute
At the heart of the case is a sharp disagreement over how much Ainu Shamsi owes DTB.
The company says the USD47.06 million-plus-KSh30 million claim was substantially inflated through disputed charges.
It challenged a 10 per cent annual default penalty and questioned a USD974,709 deduction described as advance profit.
Ainu Shamsi compared the disputed claim with an original facility of about USD10 million, arguing that the difference raised serious questions.
It also challenged certain 2022 debentures, claiming they were neither authorised by the company nor properly registered.
A January 2026 CR12 search, it argued, showed that the last registered debenture dated from 2018.
The company therefore questioned whether some securities could legally support DTB’s claim and the resulting administration.
DTB presented a substantially different financial picture before the judge, pointing to several facilities advanced between 2013 and 2022.
Those facilities included term loans and overdrafts supporting working capital, refinancing and other business requirements.
The bank said the facilities were repeatedly restructured, while the securities securing them remained valid and enforceable.
DTB also said it issued demand letters dated July 8 and September 16, 2024, before taking action against the company.
As of May 12, 2026, the bank calculated Ainu Shamsi’s indebtedness at USD17,146,173.39 and KSh108,544,325.61, excluding accrued interest.
That figure is dramatically lower than the USD47.06 million-plus-KSh30 million claim Ainu Shamsi says DTB had declared.
The difference became central to the court’s decision because Justice Rutto noted that competing figures remained before her.
Administration Fight
Ainu Shamsi wanted the court to immediately unfreeze its KCB accounts and protect its transport assets from seizure or sale.
The company warned that continued administration could cripple operations, damage customer relationships and destroy valuable business goodwill.
The court, however, found that unfreezing the accounts would reverse actions already taken by the administrators.
That made the application a request for a mandatory injunction, which carries a considerably higher legal threshold.
Justice Rutto said applicants seeking such relief must demonstrate exceptional circumstances and present an unusually clear case.
Although Ainu Shamsi had raised serious and arguable questions, those issues remained strongly contested by DTB and the administrators.
The court therefore refused to restore control of the accounts to directors or restrain administrators from exercising their statutory powers.
Those questions, Justice Rutto held, required fuller examination during the substantive petition rather than through interim orders.
Importantly, the ruling did not endorse DTB’s entire position or finally declare the administrators’ appointment lawful.
Instead, the judge found the competing positions too contested for definitive findings at this preliminary stage.
Numbers Matter
The court’s most important intervention came through its reconciliation order, placing the disputed financial figures under formal scrutiny.
Ainu Shamsi does not deny receiving several facilities from DTB, but disputes how the alleged outstanding debt was calculated.
Its complaints cover penalties, charges, profit components and other amounts included in DTB’s calculations.
Justice Rutto said the competing figures demonstrated a “genuine dispute” over the extent of Ainu Shamsi’s indebtedness.
That finding explains why the judge stopped short of choosing between the competing figures.
Rather than personally supervise a detailed forensic reconciliation, she placed that responsibility on the joint administrators.
Under the Insolvency Act, administrators are officers of the court and must act independently and impartially.
Their responsibilities therefore extend beyond the creditor that appointed them to the company, its creditors and administration process.
Justice Rutto also stressed that administration is designed as a corporate rescue mechanism rather than simply another debt-recovery tool.
Where possible, the process should preserve a company as a going concern or produce better creditor outcomes than liquidation.
That objective requires administrators to establish the company’s genuine financial position before deciding its ultimate direction.
30-Day Test
The administrators must now conduct or facilitate a comprehensive reconciliation involving Ainu Shamsi and DTB where necessary.
They must verify the outstanding indebtedness and examine concerns surrounding interest, profit charges and penalties.
Their report must establish the company’s financial position while setting out a roadmap for its future operations.
They must specifically consider whether Ainu Shamsi remains a going concern and what steps could preserve business continuity.
The report must be filed in court within 30 days, although it will not finally determine the parties’ competing legal claims.
That qualification is important because the reconciliation is an investigative step, not a final judgment on the debt.
For now, administrators remain in control while Ainu Shamsi stays under administration.
The company failed to regain banking control or secure protection for its assets, but it succeeded in forcing the disputed debt figures into formal scrutiny.
That reconciliation could become the most consequential document in the dispute because it may finally clarify the competing numbers.
It could show whether the company’s financial problems resemble DTB’s later calculation or the much larger figure Ainu Shamsi says was claimed.
It could also determine whether rescue remains realistic, restructuring is possible or liquidation eventually becomes unavoidable.
READ ALSO: Grand Regency Twist: Court Rules CBK Rightfully Kept KSh185.5 Million After 28-Year Legal War
For DTB, the exercise offers an opportunity to substantiate its financial position with reconciled figures and supporting records.
For Ainu Shamsi, it creates an opportunity to challenge those numbers systematically while seeking to preserve its business.
And for the court, the administrators’ report should provide a clearer factual foundation for resolving the larger insolvency battle.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
