For six years, two vehicles sat inside Reyhan Petroleum Limited’s yard, gathering dust and storage charges.
What began as a simple parking arrangement eventually became a bitter legal fight worth millions of shillings.
Now, the High Court has settled one part of that dispute while leaving another potentially explosive question unresolved.
Justice Peter M. Mulwa has upheld a KSh634,000 award against Philippe Bimenyima for vehicle storage charges.
But the judge stopped short of deciding whether Reyhan Petroleum lawfully auctioned Bimenyima’s two vehicles.
That unresolved question sits inside a separate KSh5.6 million counterclaim, which must now move elsewhere.
The judgement was delivered last week in Nairobi, after an appeal from Milimani Small Claims Court.
Six-Year Parking
The dispute centred on two vehicles, registration numbers KBG 632E and KAX 364L.
According to Reyhan, Bimenyima’s agents towed and deposited the vehicles at its premises.
The parties allegedly agreed that each vehicle would attract KSh1,000 in daily storage charges.
They were also expected to collect the vehicles within seven days after their arrival.
Instead, the vehicles remained at Reyhan’s premises for approximately six years.
That prolonged stay transformed modest parking charges into a substantial commercial debt.
Reyhan eventually instructed auctioneers to sell both vehicles through public auction.
Each vehicle fetched KSh400,000, producing combined auction proceeds of KSh800,000.
The company applied those proceeds against the accumulated storage bill before pursuing the remaining balance.
It calculated outstanding storage charges at KSh643,000 after deducting the auction proceeds.
Reyhan also claimed KSh140,000 in auctioneer’s fees and KSh100,000 in legal expenses.
Those additional claims pushed its total demand before the Small Claims Court to KSh874,000.
Bimenyima disputed the arrangement, insisting the daily rate was only KSh200.
But his bigger battle concerned what happened to the vehicles themselves.
Bigger Counterclaim
Bimenyima accused Reyhan of unlawfully converting and disposing of his vehicles.
He responded with a KSh5.6 million counterclaim over the alleged unlawful disposal.
That counterclaim quickly became the most important issue in the subsequent appeal.
The Small Claims Court awarded Reyhan KSh634,000, plus costs and interest.
It rejected Reyhan’s separate claims for auctioneer and advocates’ fees.
The court also dismissed Bimenyima’s KSh5.6 million counterclaim with costs.
Bimenyima appealed on several grounds, including jurisdiction and the treatment of his counterclaim.
He argued that the Small Claims Court could not handle a counterclaim exceeding its statutory financial limit.
The argument confronted a fundamental question about how court jurisdiction operates.
Can a defendant’s oversized counterclaim destroy jurisdiction over an otherwise valid claim?
Justice Mulwa answered that question firmly in the negative.
The Small Claims Court has a statutory pecuniary ceiling of KSh1 million.
Reyhan’s KSh874,000 claim therefore fell within that prescribed jurisdiction.
Bimenyima’s KSh5.6 million counterclaim clearly exceeded the statutory threshold.
But that excess did not automatically invalidate Reyhan’s original claim.
The judge held that “a defendant cannot unilaterally strip a court’s jurisdiction” through such a counterclaim.
That finding preserved the KSh634,000 judgement against Bimenyima.
Jurisdiction Line
Yet the Small Claims Court had made a significant procedural mistake regarding Bimenyima’s counterclaim.
It lacked jurisdiction to determine the KSh5.6 million claim because that amount exceeded its statutory limit.
The court therefore should not have dismissed the counterclaim on its merits.
Instead, it should have declined jurisdiction and allowed Bimenyima to seek relief elsewhere.
Justice Mulwa consequently set aside the dismissal of the counterclaim.
He replaced it with an order declining jurisdiction over the KSh5.6 million claim.
That means Bimenyima’s allegations concerning the vehicle auction remain legally alive.
Importantly, however, the High Court did not rule that Reyhan unlawfully auctioned the vehicles.
It also did not declare that the auction complied with the law.
The legality of that disposal remains a matter for another competent court.
That distinction is crucial because the judgement does not give either party complete victory.
Reyhan won the storage dispute, while Bimenyima preserved his larger vehicle-related claim.
The High Court also rejected Bimenyima’s attempt to use the alleged auction illegality against the storage claim.
Justice Mulwa found that Reyhan had provided storage services for approximately six years.
The company was therefore entitled to pursue payment for those services, based upon the evidence presented.
The court also upheld the finding that the applicable daily storage rate was KSh1,000.
Bimenyima had argued for KSh200, but the Small Claims Court accepted Reyhan’s evidence instead.
The High Court found no legal basis for disturbing that factual assessment.
The final outcome is therefore a careful legal split rather than a sweeping victory.
READ ALSO: Court Orders Al Husnain Motors to Refund Buyer KSh2.38 Million Over Faulty Lorry
Reyhan retains its KSh634,000 award, together with the costs and interest previously ordered.
Bimenyima, meanwhile, retains the right to pursue his KSh5.6 million counterclaim elsewhere.
The High Court ordered each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.
For now, the storage bill has survived the legal battle.
But the bigger question surrounding two auctioned vehicles remains firmly open.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
