Greenboot Kenya Limited has been awarded Sh6.8 million by the High Court after customs officers at the Port of Mombasa unlawfully detained and sold the company’s imported cooling machine without notice.

The equipment — a fruit cooling chamber valued at over Sh5.9 million — was imported in 2016, with Greenboot paying the required duty and using a licensed clearing agent to process the consignment.

Despite presenting exemption certificates from three government agencies confirming the item was for horticultural use, customs officials reclassified it as construction machinery and demanded an extra Sh2.7 million.

The High Court heard that officials at the port ignored direct instructions from Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) headquarters in Nairobi to release the cargo.

Instead, they held on to the equipment and, in 2017, sold it through a public auction without informing the importer.

Read More

  1. Nairobi satellite towns surge ahead in property market growth in Q1 2025
  2. Court orders full disclosure of Marsabit power deals after Gitson Energy row
  3. Zaumu: New platform gives content creators hope for fairer pay, brand access

Greenboot only discovered the sale several years later.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi strongly criticised the conduct of the customs officers, describing their actions as a deliberate abuse of power.

“In my humble view, the malice exhibited by the respondents’ customs officers is extreme and beyond. The deprivation of the petitioner’s property was a calculated criminal extortion concealed as lawful pursuit of the law,” he stated in his ruling.

The court found that Greenboot’s constitutional rights had been violated — including the right to property, fair administrative action, and dignity.

Besides compensating the company for the equipment and duty, the judge awarded Sh750,000 in general damages for the unlawful harassment of Greenboot’s director.

KRA argued that the auction was carried out in accordance with the East African Community Customs Management Act, blaming Greenboot for failing to clear the goods within the set timeframe.

However, the court dismissed this claim, ruling that the authority’s actions went beyond a simple civil dispute and amounted to a breach of constitutional protections.

The ruling marks a significant warning to public institutions handling private property: bureaucratic delays and disregard for procedure will not be shielded from legal consequences.