Hotel Dusit D2 by Cape Holdings limited./COURTESY PHOTO.
BY SAM ALFAN.
I&M Bank has suffered major after the High Court discharged its administrators from managing the property of Cape Holdings.
High Court Commercial Division Justice Josephine Mongare revoked appointment of Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao as joint administrators of Cape Holdings ltd.
The judge further restrained the lender from appointing an administrator to manage the properties belonging to Cape Holdings Limited, over a loan borrowed in December 2020
Justice Mong’are held that the holding by the Court of Appeal asserts and fortifies the position that Cape Holdings is (mis)using administration proceedings under the Insolvency Act to evade satisfying the decree held by Synergy.
“This is a classic case of abuse of the court process which the court cannot countenance and I am in agreement with Synergy that the placement of Cape Holdings under Administration is prejudicial to the former’s rights and interest and is a fetter to Synergy to fully execute and obtain benefit from the lawful decree it holds,” said the judge.
She added that as such, the Administration proceedings against Cape Holdings cannot proceed as the present proceedings are an abuse of the court process.
The judge said the Court of Appeal found that I&M Bank had no legal interest in the suit property, over which the impugned Debenture was created.
The judge allowed the application by Synergy Industrial Credit Limited seeking to discharge the orders issued on 23 July 2024 by the Court that restraining it from dealing or interfering with the property identified as L.R. No. 209/19436 (IR 120877).
The company further sought the revocation of the appointment of the two Raos as joint Administrators of Cape Holdings.
The court dismissed Cape Holdings application seeking the court to recall and determine the pending application dated 6th May 2024 in Misc. 114 of 2015 Cape Holdings Ltd (Under Administration) v Synergy Industrial Credit Ltd for hearing together or in consolidation.
Cape Holdings had also sought to admit the Administrator’s Report and Minutes of the Creditors Meeting and grant leave to the administrators to dispose the suit property, set out proposals to all creditors for the settlement of all lawful debts and mediation if Synergy declines the settlement offer.
Steve Okoth Odek alias Andrew alias David N. Bett before court where he denied gold fraud charges./PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY SAM ALFAN.
A good scammer has been charged with defrauding a company of Sh38.1 million.
Steve Okoth Odek alias Andrew alias David N. Bett appeared before Milimani Principal Magistrate Gilbert Shikwe and denied the charges.
Odek is accused of obtaining USD 265,200 approximately Sh38,188,800 from Asianic Ltd by falsely pretending that he was in a position to sell 580 kilograms of gold to the firm.
It is alleged that he committed the offence on diverse dates between 1st day of February and 2nd day of August, 2024 at Nairobi city county, jointly with others not before court.
The suspect allegedly defrauded the millions from Asianic Ltd by falsely pretending that he would sell were in a position to sell 580 kilograms of Gold to the said Asianic Limited a fact you knew to be false.
The suspect will remain in custody pending bail ruling tomorrow.
Fredrick Benard Okoth Ayiemba and Owour Collince Jinnah before court where denied criminal charges./PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY NT CORRESPONDENT.
Two insurance agents have been charged with obtaining Sh3.7 million from Kenindia Assurance company limited.
Fredrick Benard Okoth Ayiemba and Owour Collince Jinnah appeared before Milimani Principal Magistrate Gilbert Shikwe and denied the charges.
They are alleged to have conspired to obtain Sh3,715,456 from Kenindia Assurance company, on the diverse dates between 4th and 8th November, 2024 at Keninda House in Nairobi’s central business district.
The prosecution told the court that with intent to defraud or deceive and jointly with others not before court and without lawful authority or excuse, made a national identity card in the names of John Munyau Maingi, purporting it to be a genuine card.
The charge sheet stated that they committed the offence on diverse dates between 4th and 8th November 2024 at unknown locations.
They were released on a bond of Sh1 million or alternative cash bail of Sh400,000.
Uganda opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye before court martial in Kampala./COURTESY PHOTO.
BY SAM ALFAN.
Ugandan opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye has Uganda and Kenya at the regional court over his recent arrest and forcibly removal from Nairobi.
In a petition before the East African Court of Justice, Dr. Besigye alongside Karamangi Andrew, Godwin Toko and Odur Anthony stated that their removal was illegal.
They want the regional court to declare that their extra-territorial abduction and extraordinary renditioning from Kenya to Uganda was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law.
They also argue that the move was against democracy and good governance principles enshrined in Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the East African Community Treaty.
They further want the regional court to permanently restrain Kenya from conducting, engaging in, aiding or tolerating in any forced removals or abductions of foreigners from its territory without due process of law.
Besigye and Lutale are also seeking compensation to the tune of USD. 100,000 to be borne jointly by the two countries.
The four want EAC court permanently stop any trial of civilians in any military courts of Uganda.
“A declaration that Uganda’s military trial of civilians: Dr. Kizza Besigye & Haji Lutale Obeid Kamulegeya in a military tribunal is in contempt of court of the 15th December 2022 orders of the Constitutional Court of Uganda vide Constitutional Petition No. 0044 of 2015; Retired Captain Amon Byarugaba and 169 Others v. Attorney General contrary to Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1) (c) of the Treaty,” they stated in the petition.
They are further arguing that their arraignment, charging and purported trial of the civilian duo in military tribunal is unlawful and contrary to the core EAC principles of good governance, democracy and Rule of law enshrined in Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty.
The opposition leader urges the regional court to declare that Uganda’s impugned conduct constitutes political persecution and judicial harassment contrary to the principles of good governance, democracy and Rule of Law vide Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1)(c) of the Treaty.
Also they want regional court to declare trying of civilians in military Courts violates the principles of good governance, democracy and Rule of law contrary to Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(1) (c) of the Treaty.
Derrick Kimathi Nyamu and Stephen Kilonzo Mutie before court./PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY IRENE ONYANGO.
Two proprietors of a gas firm that exploded early this year killing more than 10 people in Embakasi early this year have been charged manslaughter.
Derrick Kimathi Nyamu and Stephen Kilonzo Mutie appeared before Milimani Principal Magistrate Gilbert Shikwe and denied 10 counts of manslaughter.
Kimathi and Kilonzo are facing 10 counts of manslaughter and one count of operating an unlicensed liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) at a storage facility.
According to the charge sheet, the duo unlawfully caused the deaths of 10 individuals on the night of 1st and 2nd February this year, at Mradi in Embakasi Sub-County.
The explosion claimed the lives of Martin Simiyu Walumbi, Vallary Nyandiko, Charles Macharia, Stanley Vulimu Chasia, Austine Chibini Chivanda, Flora Njeru and Ann Nyaguthi Muriuki.
Others who died in the fire were Simon Mulongo Nyongesa and Miriam Onyango. The charges stated that they were negligent in operating the gas facility.
The Court heard that the two accused persons were running the LPG facility without the requisite license from the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA), contrary to the Petroleum Act No. 2 of 2019.
The incident that occurred at a residential place in Embakasi earlier this year reportedly resulted in a devastating explosion at the Mradi site, claiming multiple lives and causing widespread damage of the neighbouring properties.
Prosecution counsel Gachoka while submitting, detailed to the court how the accused failed to adhere to safety regulations, leading to the tragic deaths.
They were released on a bond of Sh 3Million or an alternative cashbail of Sh 1 million pending pre trial.
NCBA BANK that has been ordered to pay a customer Sh700,000 for sending misleading loan statement to a third party./PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY SAM ALFAN.
NCBA Bank has been ordered to pay a doctor over half a million for sending misleading information regarding his loan statement to his former wife.
The Data protection commissioner ordered the lender to compensate Dr. Bernard Shiaunda Aete by paying him Sh700,000 for violating his rights.
The Data protection commissioner found NCBA Bank liable for violating the medic’s right to object and the right of erasure under section 26(c) of the Act and section 40 of the Act respectively.
Dr Shiaunda stated that he received false and misleading information regarding his loan statements from the Bank.
He said he had taken a loan with the Bank which he opened at the Moi Avenue Mombasa Branch.
On opening the said facilities, the Complainant was required to furnish the bank with his telephone number as well as an alternate telephone number.
He stated that he gave a number of his former wife.
Later on, he went to the NCBA’s and changed the alternate number to that of one of his son’s and asked the lender to effect the changes immediately.
He stated that on 20th November 2023, the Bank wrote to confirm that the loan accounts were well serviced.
He added that on diverse dates from February 2023, he received false and misleading information from the lender on his telephone line and the messages simultaneously sent to the alternate number.
The said information was simultaneously sent to a third party despite numerous requests to have the third party removed as an alternate contact from his account.
The medic argued that the lender divulged confidential data to third parties contrary to express and written instructions for a period of about eight months.
The information so divulged was false, malicious and deliberately calculated to injure the image of the Complainant before the third party and any other persons to whom the information could be further conveyed.
A perusal of the bank statement dated 20th November 2023, which covers the entire loan period does not show that the Complainant owed the lender money at any time.
The doctor stated that the actions of the bank have violated his right to dignity, right to privacy, right to fair administrative action and the right to access to Information.
Oshwal Academy has been ordered to allow Muslim students to perform midday (Dhuhr) prayers in the school compound.
While quashing a directive by the school to ban the prayers, Justice John Wakiaga declared the decision as unconstitutional and discriminative.
“A declaration is hereby issued that the decision of the Oshwal Acadamy limited to inhibit or disallow performance of (dhuhr) afternoon prayers by Muslim learners in the school indirectly discriminated against them on the basis of their religion,” declared the court.
Justice Wakiaga further declared that the policies issued by the school known as Guidelines and Regulations for Cooperative Engagement between the School and Parents, as null and void.
The judge said the rules were unconstitutional to the extent that they violate the rights and freedoms of the Muslim students.
The court found that the actions of the school as against the Muslim learners resulted in violation of their constitutional rights to freedom of worship, education and fair administrative action.
Mohamed Khan filed the petition on behalf of Muslim learners, challenging the school decision to ban Muslim students from praying within the school compound.
The parent sought the protection of the students fundamental right to education and the freedom of free exercise of religion.
Muslim students argued that prior to the Westgate terrorist attack in September 2013, the School allowed its Muslim learners to walk to the Parklands Mosque for Friday prayers over the lunch break.
On other days of the week, parents would pick their children for lunch and return them by 2 pm.
This arrangement allowed the learners to observe their prayers in their homes.
Following the terrorist attack, however, the practice was stopped for security reasons.
Parents engaged the school and it was agreed that they would collectively provide transport for the Friday prayers and return the learners within the lunch break. The arrangement continued until sometime in September 2017.
They stated that as a result of the foregoing, the students opted to observe their afternoon prayers within the school premises.
In May 2018, the school principal Joystan Chotai, gave a directive for Muslim pupils to stop praying within the school compound and stationed teachers in class rooms over the lunch hour to ensure observance of the directive.
The issue was raised at a parents’ forum in May 2018 but the School declined to allow the request by Muslim parents and further rejected a request for Muslim learners to pray anywhere within the school compound.
Subsequent correspondence between the School and the advocates of parents of Muslim children bore no fruit.
The School’s stand was that it does not accord special treatment to any faith and that no special treatment can be accorded to Muslim students.
They assert that it is on record that as part of the School routine in the assemblies and orientation, Jain prayers are performed, a classic example of double standards.
They further stated that in a circular dated January 12, 2019, the School unilaterally and without consultation with the parents, introduced new guidelines.
The rules were known as Guidelines and Regulations for Cooperative Engagement Between the School and the Parents.
Clause 3 of the Guidelines provides that the school is based on Jainism and the values thereof, that the school does not provide for the practice or engagement of any religious rites, rituals or expression, but rather provides an environment where all regardless of their faith can equally participate and engage in school community.
Further that the School will not provide spaces, teaching clubs or school resources to religious practice which led the petitioner and other Muslim parents to instruct their Advocates on record to seek the intervention.
They averred that by a letter dated 20.2.19 the School introduced guidelines and important information for parents relating to the common entrance test.
They stated that the School also introduced Terms for Continuity of Students which contains conditions precedent to the acceptance of a child at the School. Further that the terms also give the School the sole discretion to terminate or decline re-enrolment if it concludes that a parent or guardian interferes with the school’s accomplishment as a faith based academic oriented institution.
Further that parents were required to sign the transition form as a condition precedent. The Petitioners’ contention is that prior to February 2019, progression at the School had been automatic for all students.
School opposed the application through Chotai, academic consultant of the School. She claimed that the School which has been in existence since 1950 is founded on the Jain faith of which parents are made aware upon enrolment to the School.
Further that this fact is set out in the Students’ Code of Conduct.
Additionally, that despite the said foundation, no religious subject is taught in school but that the students are expected to recite the school prayer during the morning hours and are also known to recite the Navkaar Mantra and adhere to a vegetarian diet. Chotai further stated that save for the school prayer and vegetarian food, no preferential treatment is given to any mligion.
It was further averred that prior to 2013, parents would pick their children during lunch hour but denied that they would do so for the dhuhr prayers. Further that on January 16th, 2013, the Head of the School issued a notice to all parents and quardians to the effect that the students of junior and senior high school would not be allowed to leave school during the lunch hour unless escorted by parents.
She explained that that decision was necessitated by security concerns following the Westgate attack.
Chotai admitted the claims but said the petitioners represent only 40 out a population of 313 Muslim students at the School.
Chotai further deposed that the School is focused on the security and best interests of the children in compliance with the Constitution and has even adopted a Child Protection Policy.
Further that the need to ensure that the children are not segregated during lunch hour is aimed at protecting the security of the children. She denied the allegation that the School has deployed teachers to monitor the classrooms during lunch hour.
Atlantis Life Science limited driver Morrice Tom Adalo before court where he denied stealing the company property./PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY NT REPORTER.
A company driver has been charged with stealing goods worth Sh15.1 million.
Morris Tom Adalo appeared before Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Benmark Ikhubi and denied the charges.
Adalo is accused that on diverse dates between 1st of May in the year 2022 and 6th June this year within Mombasa road in Nairobi County he stole goods worth Sh15,113,961.
Adalo who is employed by Atlantis Life Science limited as a driver stole the goods together with others not before court.
He was released on a bond of Sh1 million or alternative cash bail of Sh400,000.
University of Nairobi lawyer Patrick Lutta outside Milimani Law Court building after the hearing of the case in which a company is seeking billions from government over prime property in upper Hill area in Nairobi./PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY SAM ALFAN.
A company have moved to court seeking to be paid over Sh5 billion by the government, and the University of Nairobi for loss of a prime property in Nairobi’s Upper Hill area.
Wathanangu Holding limited through lawyer Kibe Mungai want the government to compensate it Sh5,144,142,225 over the property near the Kenya National Hospital (KNH) and Kenya Accountants and Secretaries National Examinations Board (KASNEB).
The company want the court to quash the decision or advice by the then Minister for Lands contained in the letter dated 7th March, 2006 arguing that it was made in contravention of its rights and freedoms.
The company wants the Environment and Land court Judge Anne Korros to issue mandatory injunction compelling the Attorney General, UoN, Kenya Medical Training Center(KMTC), to vacate the parcel of land. The firm is also seeking the removal of all bill boards and structures erected on the parcel.
“A declaration be issued to declare that the forcible entry, seizure, occupation and repossession of L. R. No. 209/12109 (I.R. No. 65345) amount to violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to protection of property under Article 40 of the Constitution,” the company said in court documents.
According to the company, it is the registered proprietor of L. R. No. 209/12109 (Grant No. I. R. 65345) measuring 0.4034 Hectares by dint of the first original title dated 22nd February, 1995 issued under the Registration of Titles Act.
The company stated that through a Sale Agreement dated 8th February, 1995, it purchased the said property for Sh4.5 from Silver Clouds Investment Ltd the then allottee.
The firm said since 1999 government entities including KMTC have been interfering with its rights of ownership and occupation of the subject property, using various unlawful schemes and devices.
Environment and Land court heard In August 1999, Wathanangu Holding ltd instituted judicial review proceedings seeking the removal of a caveat registered by the Registrar of Titles on 20th April 1999.
“Pursuant to the said judicial review proceedings on 19th October 1999 the High Court issued an order compelling the Registrar of Titles to remove the caveat he had placed on the subject land -LR No. 209/12109. The said caveat was finally removed on 5th January 2001,” court heard.
Subsequently Chief Land Registrar with full knowledge of the ongoing allotment of land in the vicinity of the subject land, failed to take administrative action to inform UoN and KMTC that the company was the legitimate owner of subject land.
This was four years before the UoN and KMTC were allotted a parcel adjacent to the disputed parcel. “Chief Land Registrar to date by his actions has abetted the trespassing of the subject land by UoN and KMTC. As a result of Registrar’s commission and omission the company was denied the opportunity to proceed with development of the property in 1999 despite development plans having been prepared and delivery to site of building materials commenced,” Wathanangu Holding ltd lawyer Kibe told the court.
Company submitted that in November 2003, KMTC erected a fence around a plot adjacent the Wathanangu’s land in the course of which it blocked the public access to its parcel.
“Despite several requests by the company to KMTC to allow access, KMTC agents used violent means to deny Wathanangu Holding ltd access to LR No 209/12109 from November 2003 to 2013. KMTC had knowledge that it had no legitimate claim of the property LR No.209/12109,” court heard.
The court heard that during the period UoN erected a bill board on Wathanangu’s land claiming ownership over it. UoN, the firm said, therefore had knowledge and tacitly approved the actions of KMTC.
“By this circumstantial evidence KMTC acted on behalf of UoN with UoN’s approval. As a result of the said actions of UoN and KMTC, Wathanangu was denied the opportunity to proceed with development of the property despite development plans having been prepared and delivery to site of building materials commenced,” court heard.
The court further heard that subsequent to its allotment of surveyed land had knowledge that the parcel of land allotted to it excluded the property LR No 209/12109.
“Despite the aforementioned knowledge, UoN mischievously requested for Government intervention on property LK No 209/12109 by a letter dated 7th March 2006.
Pursuant to which the then Acting Minister of lands Prof. Kivutha Kibwana stated that the University of Nairobi was the rightful owner of the land.
The minister then advised and directed the university to repossess it and put it to the use originally intended. Wathanangu argued that the Minister’s advice and directive were and remain unlawful.
“The Minister’s actions on behalf of the 5th defendant abetted the trespassing of the subject land by 2nd and 3rd defendants. As a result of the said action of the 5th Defendant’s the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to proceed with development of the property despite development plans having been prepared and delivery of building materials commenced,” court heard.
Alex Kimaiyo Kiprono before court where he denied accessing access bank account illegally./PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY SAM ALFAN.
A man has been charged with computer misuse and unauthorized access to Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) security system.
Alex Kimaiyo Kiprono was accused of infringing into the security measures of KCB and also accessing a joint bank account in the names of Samuel Kimuchu Gichuru and Bilha Wanjiku Gichuru.
It is alleged that after gaining access to the said account, Kiprono effected electronic money transferring close to Sh2 million.
Kiprono is said to have committed the offense on 10th January 2024 at an unknown place in Kenya, jointly with others not before court, with intent to defraud.
In addition, the accused is charged with computer fraud after obtaining an economic benefit of Sh1,822,683 through unlawful access to the said account.
He denied the charges when he appeared before Senior Principal Magistrate Ben-Mark Ekhubi. The court directed him to deposit cash bail of Sh650,000, to secure his release.
The case will be mentioned on 28th January 2025 for pre-trial hearing.
