Home Blog

FRAUD CASE AGAINST POLITICIAN AND ACCOUNTANT TO BE HEARD I. FEBRUARY.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0

By NT Correspondent.

The trial of a politician accused of defrauding a company of Sh102 million has been pushed to February.

The case against Jonathan Ngenga Ndisya and Peter Kamau Njuguna will now be heard on February 20 before Milimani chief magistrate Lucas Onyina.

Ndisya, who is eyeing Mwingi West parliamentary seat has been charged alongside Njuguna, an accountant with defrauding Agro Irrigation & Pump Services ltd.

It is alleged that they committed the offence between 1 July 2018 and 31 March 2020 at Agro Irrigation & Pump Services Limited Offices, in Nairobi County.

It is alleged that they jointly conspired to defraud the firm.

Njuguna was had been employed as an accountant at Agro Irrigation & Pump Services Limited while Ndisya is the director of Joncil Enterprises respectively.

It is alleged that they falsely pretended that Joncil Enterprises had deposited the Sh. 106,822,690 to the bank account of Agro Irrigation & Pump Services Limited, for the goods supplied to Joncil Enterprises.

Njuguna is further accused of stealing Sh. 4,777,094, from the company by fraudulently transferring the money to his personal account. The charge sheet stated that the money which came into his possession by virtue of his employment.

The two accused persons are out on a cash bail.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

FIRST ROUND WIN FOR SOCIETY MEMBERS IN FIGHT FOR EXPANSIVE LAND IN MACHAKOS AGAINST FORMER PS.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
FIRST ROUND WIN FOR SOCIETY MEMBERS IN FIGHT FOR EXPANSIVE LAND IN MACHAKOS AGAINST FORMER PS.

By Sam Alfan.

A judge has ordered a subsidiary of a state corporation to join a case in which members of a society are fighting over the ownership of an expansive land in Machakos County against a former Treasury PS.

Environment and Land court directed Lands Limited to join the case in which members of Stony Athi are fighting over the ownership of the land against former PS Charles Mbindyo.

Stony Athi members moved to court seeking to suspend the implementation of the recommendations made by the National Land Commission (NLC) on February 17, 2025, for the revocation of certificate of lease and survey plans in favour of the association.

Justice A Koross further ordered that there shall be no interference with the occupancy of LR number 9917/4 and LR number 9917/8 or shall there be any eviction from the contested land.

The court further prohibited any transfer, sale, charge or registration, pending the hearing and determination of the petition.

The association wants the court to declare that NLC lacked jurisdiction to entertain, hear or determine any claim relating to the parcel of land L.R No. 9917/8 as the same was not part of the determination in Machakos ELC Judicial Review case.

Mbidyo alleges that he purchased the expansive land from Lands Limited, a subsidiary of the Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC), which is fully owned and controlled by the corporation.

The Environment and Land court judge added that before the sale of land identified as LR. No. 9917/4 to the former PS, the land was a public property as it was held by a state organ.

Mbidyo said he purchased the property from Lands Limited in 1989 and that it was transferred to him on July 4, 1989.

He said he had occupied the land peacefully for over 26 years until September 2015, when a group of people invaded the property.

The association through lawyer Philip Nyachoti says NLC had been directed by the court to only interrogate and review the propriety and legality of title No. 9917/4 by hearing Mbindyo and ADC and Lands Ltd only as the parties to the dispute and not any other party.

They also argue that NLC lacked jurisdiction to hear, investigate and determine any complaint or claim with respect to L.R No. 9917/8 since there was no such complaint before it.

“A declaration that the 1st Respondent’s investigations conducted in respect to L.R No. 9917/8 and the determination made on 17th February 2025 was made without jurisdiction, is unconstitutional and therefore irregular, unlawful, null and void and of no legal effect,” lawyer Nyachoti submitted.

The members allege that although Mbindyo had initially purchased the land, ADC reclaimed 1,558 hectares of the land between 1990 and 1991 and issued the former PS with a credit note of Sh. 2.95 million.

Consequently on or about 20 July 1995, the suit property was surveyed and subdivided into L.R No. 9917/8 and L.R No. 9917/9 pursuant to the said reclamation by Mbindyo.

Thereafter, a surrender document in respect of L.R No. 9917/8 was prepared by the Commissioner of Lands to facilitate the surrender of the same back to Mbindyo.

And following the conclusion of the survey exercise and the subdivision of the suit property into L.R No. 9917/8 and L.R No. 9917/9, Mbindyo was allocated all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 9917/9 measuring 2233.31 Ha. 

On 23 August 2013, the association registered its interest in acquiring parcel of land known as L.R No. 9917/8 measuring 1558.60 Ha.

NLC on receipt of the association’s request, invoked its mandate to review the grant of all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 9917/8 in order to establish whether the same was available for allocation to the association.

All parties were then summoned to a public hearing in 2017.

However, none of the parties attended save for the association members and a county executive member for Machakos.

Thereafter, the members were allocated the land.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

EACC AND DPP DIFFER ONCE AGAIN IN OBADO GRAFT CASE.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
EACC AND DPP DIFFER ONCE AGAIN IN OBADO GRAFT CASE.

By Sam Alfan.

The battle for supremacy between Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and Director of Public Prosecution Renson Ingonga has once again played out in court as each party sought to assert itself.

In the latest case, EACC invited a trial magistrate in the graft case agajbst former Migori governor Okoth Obado, to find that the DPP Igonga has exercised his powers arbitrarily in a plea agreement, seeking the withdrawal of the case.

EACC says the court should reject the bid in totality.

In submissions filed in court, said the bid should be rejected for not complying with Sections 137A-1370 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for failure to meet the public interest threshold.

The court heard that the attempt by the DPP to withdraw the criminal case under section 87(a) of the CPC under the guise of plea negotiations is an abuse of the court process and the court should disallow the same.

The anti-graft body submitted that the court under Article 165(7) of the constitution is mandated to safeguard the law and to keep public bodies, state and public officers within their constitutional and statutory mandates and boundaries.

“Where a public body is apparently in breach or violation of the law and established constitutional principles, this court has jurisdiction and powers to intervene. We invite the court to exercise its constitutional mandate and find that the DPP has arbitrarily exercised his powers in the impugned plea agreement,” court heard.

EACC submitted that the DPP’s has enthusiastically submitted on Article 157 of the Constitution which provides that powers to prosecute are vested in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

“Whereas we acknowledge that the DPP is constitutionally mandated to prosecute, the said powers are subject to scrutiny,” court heard.

The commission submitted that corruption and economic crimes are matters of public interest. Corruption deprives citizens of essential services, undermines socio-economic rights and it is directly linked to developmental stagnation and inequality.

The anti-graft body said it was paramount that corruption cases are treated with caution and the seriousness that they deserve.

The EACC added that various considerations like the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, accountability of offenders, protection of victims and the community and maintaining public confidence in the justice system should come into play in the determination of corruption and economic crimes cases.

“We respectfully submit that the plea agreement before court fails to meet the public interest threshold. Whereas plea agreements play an important role in the efficient administration of justice, efficiency cannot override legality, proportionality, accountability, and public confidence in the criminal justice system,” the commission submitted.

EACC told the court that Obado and his co-accused are facing corruption charges and the proposed plea agreement substantially understates the gravity of the offences the accused persons are charged with.

“Admitting such an agreement will erode public confidence and send a message that serious corruption and economic crimes can be resolved through undue leniency, thereby undermining deterrence,” court heard.

The commission invited the court as the guardian of the public interest to consider that the plea agreement filed in court inadequately serves the interests of the Kenyan society and it undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and consequently reject the same in totality.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

CAR DEALER FACES FRAUD CHARGES AFTER FAILING TO DELIVER CAR TO BUSINESSWOMAN.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
CAR DEALER FACES FRAUD CHARGES AFTER FAILING TO DELIVER CAR TO BUSINESSWOMAN.

By Reporter.

A car dealer has been charged with falsely obtaining Sh3.5 million from a customer.

Kelvin Kamau Kihara appeared before Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo where he denied the fraud charges.

Kihara allegedly obtained the money from Gloria Mwende Richard, on diverse dates between September 2023 and September 10, 2024 at unknown place.

The court heard that he committed the offence by means of fraudulent tricks and obtained Sh 3,532,000.00 from Mwende under the pretence that he of was in a position to import a Toyota Harrier on her behalf.

Kihara is further accused of knowingly using Sh.211,400 thay was deposited in his MPesa, knowing that the same formed part or proceeds of crime.

The court heard that at the time of the said acquisition, Kihara knew or had reasons to believe the same formed part of or was the proceeds of crime.

Kihara denied a total of 12 counts. He was released on a cash bail of Sh500,000.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

DIRECTOR CHARGED WITH SH1.9 MILLION FRAUD.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
DIRECTOR CHARGED WITH SH1.9 MILLION FRAUD.

By Reporter.

A Director of Limbola Farmers limited has been charged with obtaining over Sh1.9 million from a businessman.

Peter Omutsan Malala appeared before Milimani Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina and pleaded not guilty.

Prosecution told the court that on diverse dates between 23 October and 13 November 2024 at Nairobi County, Mulala jointly with others not before court, with intent to defraud, being the director of Limbola Farmers limited obtained from Mohamed Reda, USD 14,770.00 (equivalent toSh 1,920,100).

He defrauded the money by falsely pretending that through his company his was in a position to procure, process and export processed nineteen metric tons (19) of black bean coffee of grade screen from the Port of Mombasa in Kenya and ship the consignment to port Casablanca in the Republic of Morocco, a fact that he knew to be false.

He is accused that n 13 November 2024, at unknown place within Kenya, being the Director of Limbola Farmers ltd, he acquired USD 14,770.00 (equivalent to Sh 1,920,100) in United Bank for Africa account held in the name of Limbola Farmers ltd and at the time of acquisition of the said money, he knew or ought to have known that the funds form part of the proceeds of crime.

He was released on a cash of Sh200,000 and the matter will be mentioned next month.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

NAIROBI ACADEMY TO PAY OVER SH600,000 FOR USING MINOR’S DATA TO CELEBRATE GOOD PERFORMANCE WITHOUT PARENTS CONSENT.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
NAIROBI ACADEMY TO PAY OVER SH600,000 FOR USING MINOR’S DATA TO CELEBRATE GOOD PERFORMANCE WITHOUT PARENTS CONSENT.

By Sam Alfan.

Nairobi Academy has been ordered to pay over half a million shillings to a minor for using the child’s photo to advertise the school’s achievement without the parents’ consent.

The school was ordered to compensate the student Sh637,500 for breach of data privacy.

Data Commissioner Immaculate Kassait said the school was liable for using the photos with the parents’ consent.

The Data protection commissioner noted that Section 65(4) of the Act provides that “damage” includes financial loss and damage not involving financial loss, including distress.

“Having established that the Respondent (The Nairobi Academy) failed unlawfully processed a minor’s personal data for commercial purposes and violated the Complainant’s right to object, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the complainant Sh 637,500 as compensation,” said the Data Commissioner.

The office of the Data Protection Commission said it took into account the nature and extent of violation and Nairobi Academy’s previous conduct and the scope of publication of the personal data.

The minor’s parents filed the complaint against the school for unlawfully disclosing and causing the publication of the child’s personal data.

The information disclosed the child’s name and examination results in a newspaper segment appearing under the Advertising Feature section of a local daily.

The publication was made without the complainant’s consent and in the absence of any other lawful basis.

The Complainant told the Data Commissioner that the Nairobi Academy had, on several occasions, unlawfully shared, disclosed and caused to be published the child’s personal data, specifically the minor’s name and examination results.

The minor’s father stated that the first instance of such disclosure occurred in the year 2023.

After raising the issue with the school at that time, the Nairobi Academy acknowledged, the concern and allegedly assured him that it would neither share nor publicly disclose the minor’s personal data without obtaining his prior consent.

Notwithstanding the foregoing assurance, the school is alleged to have subsequently shared, disclosed, and caused the publication of the minor’s name and examination results in the newspaper of Thursday, 21 August 2025.

He contendd that the said processing of the minor’s personal data was unlawful and was undertaken for the commercial benefit of the school, in the absence of consent or any other lawful basis as required under the Act.

The Nairobi Academy acknowledged the seriousness of the concerns raised by the parent, particularly the publication of a minor’s identifiable examination results in the newspaper.

The school said the concerns relating to the handling of the learner’s personal data are legitimate.

However, the school said the examination results were included in material shared with newspaper as part of a general academic performance update and that no express parental consent was obtained prior to the disclosure.

They further averred that while the publication was not intended for commercial gain, the disclosure nonetheless constituted processing of personal data.

The Nairobi Academy admitted that the complainant’s subsequent enquiries were not addressed in a timely manner and expressed regret for the delay.

They attributed the incident to lapses in their internal procedures governing the disclosure of learners personal data.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

WHY COURT STOPPED SMALL CLAIMS COURT POWERS TO DETERMINE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS ARISING FROM ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
WHY COURT STOPPED SMALL CLAIMS COURT POWERS TO DETERMINE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS ARISING FROM ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

By Sam Alfan.

Small Claims Court (SCC) do not have jurisdiction to entertain personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents (RTA), the High Court has ruled.

A bench of three judges ruled that while section 12(1)(d) of the Small Claims Court Act refers to “compensation for personal injuries,” Parliament did not intend this provision to include complex negligence-based claims arising from RTAs.

“A claim for compensation for personal injuries in RTA cannot qualify as a small and simple claim,” said the court.

The court said subjecting the claims for personal injury in RTA to the SCC would limit the rights of insurers under sections 3A and 3B of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third party Risks) Act and therefore, fall foul with Article 50 of the constitution.

The court said if it was the intention of Parliament to limit the rights of insurers under the said section, nothing would have been easier than to state as it did on the application of the rules of evidence under the Evidence Act.

“In this regard, we find and hold that claims for compensation for injuries arising out of road traffic accidents were not contemplated to be part of the matters to be entertained by the Small Claims Court under section 12(1)(d) of the Act.” Said the court.

In yet another blow to the court, the High Court declared Rule 25(1) of the Small Claims Court Rules unconstitutional and against the law to the extent that it permits execution of decrees through arrest and committal to civil jail by importing the Civil Procedure Rules.

The court held that the SCC Act expressly provides for specific modes of execution, none of which include arrest or imprisonment.

The three-judge bench directed all cases for personal injuries arising from road traffic accidents be transferred to the magistrates’ court for hearing.

“Accordingly, we find and hold that the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation for personal injuries arising out of road traffic accidents,” said the court.

According to the court claims of personal injuries arising from road traffic accidents require proof of duty of care, breach, causation, and damages, and involve medical and insurance evidence governed by other statutory frameworks, including the Insurance Act.

The court held that such claims fall outside the simplified, informal, and expedited procedures envisioned under the Small Claims Court framework and should properly be filed before magistrates’ courts.

The court upheld the constitutionality of various procedural provisions of the Small Claims Court Act and Rules, including timelines for conclusion of cases, limitation of appeals to points of law, and relaxed evidentiary rules.

According to the court, the provisions were deliberately enacted to give effect to the purpose of the SCC thus fast, affordable, and accessible forum for simple civil disputes involving modest monetary values of below Sh1 million.

“We are therefore of the view that the provisions of sections 20, 23, 32, and 38 of the Act and Rules 2393) of the Rules were deliberately introduced in the Act not to restrict the right to fair trial but to facilitate the smooth and informal processes of the nature of cases contemplated for that court. From our observation above, claims for personal injuries in RTA were not contemplated to be for that court,” said the court.

The court stated that a claim for personal injury is a question of negligence that can only be determined by way of facts advanced through oral and documentary evidence and testimonies, which question does not qualify as a simple issue to be determined summarily without a comprehensive hearing.

According to the High Court, the jurisdiction of personal injury claims, which by dint of insurance contracts on policy secured between the insurer and the insured, makes them complex which requires the entire regulatory framework.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

NOT ME, SENIOR COUNSEL AHMEDNASIR DENIES APOLOGY TENDERED TO SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
NOT ME, SENIOR COUNSEL AHMEDNASIR DENIES APOLOGY TENDERED TO SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

By Sam Alfan.

Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi has dismissed claims that he has backed down on his attacks on Supreme Court judges.

In a tweet disassociating himself with submissions made before court by Senior Counsel Paul Muite, Fred Ngatia and Dennis Mosota, Ahmednasir said the submissions they made before court were not from him.

He said the sentiments made before the apex court were not personally from him and termed the report on back down as ‘false narrative’.

In a post on X, which he termed as a personal clarification and not on behalf of his partners and associates on the firm, Ahmednasir said the sentiments made in the proceedings before the Supreme Court by the two senior counsels didn’t represent him or his partners and associates.

“Our law firm was not presented by any lawyer before the court. Their eloquent and respectful submissions weren’t made on my behalf or my partners and associates. I was aware of their plea to the court and was kept in the loop at all times,” said Ahmednasir on X.

According to Ahmednasir, veteran lawyers Muite and Fred Ngatia, as well regarded and respected senior members of the bar petitioned the court on their own motion and as of right to remove the ban the court imposed on him and his partners and associates.

He clarified that lawyer Dennis Mosota represented the company involved in the matter.

“On Justice’s Lenaola’s comment that I make assurance about my future comments about the court, I think the same is utterly preposterous for such a demand to be made of me…Nobody on Earth can gag me on what to say about the court and nobody can make or made any presentations along those lines to the court. Justice Lenaola knows too well my views on the subject and I’m utterly surprised, indeed dismayed that he can hope for such an assurance from myself. If he wants assurance that I will be a good boy in future, I tell the good judge to stop daydreaming,” said Ahmednasir on X.

He further said as for the answers by SC Muite to a question posed to him by Justice Njoki, he said he maintain that his comments about the court have always been and will always be truthful and respectful.

“I haven’t and will not be personal. The notion that the court can get assurances about my future comments about the court or that the court can regulate my commentaries and diction in future is utter scandalous,” said SC Ahmednasir.

He denied and dismissed submissions by lawyer Mosota that he had showed genuine remorse and disassociated himself with the statement.

“I am not guilty of anything or wrong on something to show any “remorse” to the court. I’m at peace with myself and very proud of the struggle and personal sacrifice I make to fight Jurispesa in our courts and reform them for the betterment and benefits of Kenyans,” Ahmednasir further stated.

He said he didn’t give any guarantee or undertaking or a pledge that I will “stop attacks on apex court” because I have never, ever attacked the apex court. The newspapers articles convey the false impression that I was all along wrong, have capitulated, was on my knees and begging the court for forgiveness.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. Whereas, I feel sorry for my partners and associates who were vicariously punished, I’m proud of the engagements we had with the general public (and even with some members of the Court) about the court and attempts and struggle to reform the court,” said Ahmednasir.

He their struggle has animated many discussion, brought to the living and boardrooms of Kenyans the challenges facing the court and shaped discussions on how to make the Supreme Court of Kenya great again. The personal sacrifice was worth the resulting public good.

The veteran outspoken offered profound apology to lawyers Paul Muite, Fred Ngatia and Dennis Mosota and the court…”but i think it is VERY IMPORTANT that I set the record straight and make this clarification”, said Ahmednasir.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

MAN RECALLS HOW HE LOST HIS WIFE TO BOTCHED LIPOSUCTION PROCEDURE.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
MAN RECALLS HOW HE LOST HIS WIFE TO BOTCHED LIPOSUCTION PROCEDURE.

By Sam Alfan.

A man who lost his wife in a botched cosmetic surgical procedure has told a Nairobi court that they paid nearly Sh700,000 for the process to remove belly fat.

Francis Nganga Mundia told a Kibera that his wife Lucy Wambui Kamau died from severe complications arising from liposuction following a Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL) procedure.

Body by Design cosmetic nearly Sh. 700,000 for a cosmetic surgery that ultimately claimed her life.
Testifying before Principal Magistrate Christine Njagi, Mundia told the court that a postmortem examination revealed that his 47-year-old wife died of complications arising from the botched surgery.

The case, being prosecuted by Assistant Directors of Public Prosecutions MaryAnn Mwangi and Duncan Ondimu.
Dr. Robert Maweu Mutula together with directors of Body by Design George Wakaria Njoronge and Lilian Edna Wanjiru Mwariri have denied the charge.

The three are accused of causing Ms. Wambui’s death on October 16, 2024, at Omnicare Medical Limited, which traded as Body by Design, along Kabarsiran Avenue in Nairobi County.

The court heard that documentary evidence, including a receipt, showed the deceased paid Sh693,000 for the surgical procedure intended to remove fat from her abdomen.

Mundia testified that despite his wife’s condition deteriorating after the surgery, she was allegedly forcefully discharged from the facility before fully recovering and without having cleared the outstanding medical bill.

He further told the court that the clinic was abruptly closed immediately after her discharge, raising serious concerns about the conduct of the facility and its management.

Mundia recounted that his wife had come across advertisements by Body by Design on 10th October 2024, aggressively promoting cosmetic and surgical procedures.

She later informed him of her intention to undergo surgery to remove belly fat, a decision he said he opposed for nearly three weeks.

According to his testimony, when he visited her on the evening of October 17, 2024, a day after the surgery, she was in visible distress, complaining of severe abdominal pain and shortness of breath.

He observed that her clothes were soaked around the abdominal area with what appeared to be blood and body fluids, and that she was in extreme pain.

The situation worsened the following day as Mundia told the court that upon unwrapping her abdomen, he noticed continued oozing of blood and body fluids, accompanied by a foul fecal odour.

When he raised concerns with medical attendants at the facility, he was assured that the symptoms were normal and would subside with healing.

Mundia said that on 22 October 2024, his wife was discharged from the facility at around 4:30 p.m. despite not having fully recovered.

Within ten minutes of arriving home, he said her condition deteriorated drastically.Attempts to rush her back to Body by Design were unsuccessful, as the facility had been closed, with only a watchman present.

The family was forced to take her to Nairobi Hospital.
He emotionally recalled receiving a call from his wife on October 23, 2024, during which she asked him to pray for her, saying she feared she was going to die.

Shortly after the call ended, he received an urgent call from Nairobi Hospital asking him to rush there immediately.

Wambui later died on October 26, 2024 and Mundia reported the matter at Muthangari Police Station, prompting investigations.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

LSK COUNCIL MEMBER ASPIRANT LOSSES BID TO OVERTURN HER DISQUALIFICATION.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
LSK COUNCIL MEMBER ASPIRANT LOSSES BID TO OVERTURN HER DISQUALIFICATION.

By NT Correspondent.

An advocate seeking to be elected as a council member of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has lost appeal seeking to reverse her disqualification from the race.

Kinara Kwamboka’s application was rejected by the LSK election board since her nomination papers were no signed by two nominators as required by law.

Kwamboka was seeking to be elected to the position Member of the Council of the LSK (2026–2028), Coast Representative.

She later lodged an appeal against her disqualification but the same was rejected by the board.

The board members comprising of Joyce Majiwa (chairperson), Dr. Owiso Owiso, Dr. Koki Muli, Wambua Kilonzo, Pauline Kamunya, Ruth Hinga and Austine Omondi, dismissed her complaint and upheld the determination of invalidity of her nomination.

“The Board holds that it has no authority to allow the Complainant (Kwamboka) to post facto rectify the defect in her initial nomination paper by submitting a new nomination paper duly signed by two nominators after the deadline of 6th January 2026, as this would amount to re-opening the nomination process,” said the board.

The election Board said its mandate under Regulation 32(1) is limited to scrutinizing the nomination paper as submitted by the Complainant before the deadline of 6th January 2026.

The board reiterated its position articulated in paragraphs 29 and 30 above regarding exercise of discretion and the prejudice that would be caused to validly nominated candidates and to the LSK legal framework.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet
123...546Page 1 of 546
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv