The High Court has extended an interim injunction suspending a Joho‑linked company’s exclusive control over cargo shipments destined for South Sudan, in a move that addresses mounting logistical bottlenecks and diplomatic pressure.
Justice Peter Mulwa ordered Kenya Ports Authority and the transport ministry to temporarily reallocate cargo handling responsibilities at Mombasa Port, following a directive from the South Sudanese government to spread operations across multiple firms.
This latest ruling comes after the South Sudan Ministry of Transport formally notified Kenya on June 16 that it would revoke the existing allocation which had granted Autoport Freight Terminal, associated with Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho’s family, 80 percent of the cargo volume and instead advocated for a consortium of five companies to manage freight movement.
The court’s decision was prompted by petitions from Compact Freight Systems and other stakeholders alleging that the dominant allocation of cargo to only two firms Autoport and Compact Freight was causing severe delays.
South Sudanese officials cited logistical bottlenecks and even an incident involving auctioning of United Nations shipments, which they said threatened the timely delivery of essential supplies such as food and medicine to vulnerable populations.
Justice Mulwa recognized the urgency of the matter, emphasizing that uninterrupted supply chains are critical and that failure to act could have life‑threatening consequences for those dependent on cross‑border trade.
Although the court did not dissolve the existing agreement outright, the injunction mandates that Kenya Ports Authority implement the South Sudanese directive while the legal challenge is ongoing.
This means cargo will be reassigned among Autoport, Compact Freight, Compact FTZ, LPC Global, and Precision Container, significantly reducing Autoport’s share from 80 percent to 20 percent in the interim.
The ruling also underscored the constitutional rights of the petitioning firms to fair competition and economic participation, stating that maintaining a monopolistic allocation would be prejudicial.
The extended order reflects a growing trend of judicial oversight in public procurement and border‑crossing logistics, especially where foreign‑directed arrangements intersect with national contracts.
It came hot on the heels of a Supreme Court decision in June that blocked a Joho‑backed proposal to build a grain handling facility at Mombasa Portciting procurement irregularities further eroding the commercial dominance previously enjoyed by Joho‑linked entities.
For now, this ruling marks a legal check on politically connected commercial interests and reflects deeper shifts in regional logistics governance. South Sudan’s insistence on diversified cargo handling aims to smooth freight flows and stabilize prices for landlocked economies dependent on Kenyan infrastructure.
Observers note that the government’s silence on the directive had been criticized, and this judicial intervention compels clearer alignment with cross‑border trade policies.
As the allocation dispute plays out in court, Kenya Ports Authority and the transport ministry must navigate between compliance with foreign government instructions and managing domestic business partnerships.
The outcome could reshape Mombasa’s cargo handling landscape, influence Kenya–South Sudan trade dynamics, and set precedents for future contracts where regional interests collide with local monopolies.
Written By Ian Maleve
