Opposition Chief Raila Odinga is having sleepless nights after a company associated with him is drowning in debt.
Spectre International Limited wants Betric Kenya Limited has rushed to court seeking an order to stop the auction of its property over a Sh7 million debt.
Last month, Mombasa principal magistrate Francis Kyambia ordered Spectre to pay the fine which had remained in debt for three years.
Betric wants to auction the properties to recover the cash.
The company is said to have supplied litres of fuel oil (HFO) to Spectre International in Kisumu at a cost of Sh8 million between June 4 and July 18, 2016, but only Sh1 million was paid.
Spectre now wants the order to pay the fine overturned. It also wants the court to stop the auction of its properties.
The company claims it was not aware of the proceedings and came to know after obtaining copies of the suit.
Spectre denied owing Betric any money. It said it will suffer irreparable losses if Betric is allowed to execute the court order.
Through lawyer Awele Jackson, Spectre wants the court to urgently intervene to caution it against suffering “serious prejudice and embarrassment.”
“The defendant was not aware of the existence of these proceedings and has only now, after obtaining copies of the suit papers, obtained proper and full information about the case,” Awele said.
Under a certificate of urgency, the firm defended itself saying failure to enter an appearance and file a response was inadvertent and mainly occasioned by the manner in which service by the advertisement was effected.
It said the failure to respond was not intentional and that in the circumstances, it was in the best interest of justice that their application for stay of the execution of the judgement be urgently heard and orders sought granted.
Spectre said Betric failed to file any document proving the debt and that the claims are unmerited and unfounded.
Acting general manager Jacob Agoch said he only became aware of the suit through the media and that the claims in the plaint are unmerited and unfounded.
Agoch said the advertisement notifying them was unreasonably tiny and only appeared in classified sections together with several other unrelated adverts.
“In the circumstances, whereas the said advert was legal, it would appear the same was merely published for technical compliance and did not serve the true objective of summons,” Agoch said.