The court found that while the plaintiffs, through their chairman's affidavit, made a clear admission that the 3rd plaintiff owed the defendant USD 4,028,194.30 and KES 2,706,994.13 as pre-receivership debt, there was no full consensus between the parties on the terms of compromise, particularly regarding the discharge of securities and appointment of auditors. Therefore, no binding compromise or adjustment of the suit arose under Order 25 Rule 5. However, the admission of the pre-receivership debt was unequivocal and binding on all plaintiffs, undermining the substratum of their claim that there was no default. The court declined to strike out the suit or discharge interim orders at this stage because the post-receivership debt and related issues required forensic audit and further determination. The court ordered the parties to jointly appoint a forensic auditor within 14 days to review the receivership period transactions and determine the amount owed, with further orders to follow upon receipt of the auditor's report. The defendant was awarded half the costs of the motion.