Businessman Mohan Galot before court./BY S.A.N.


City tycoon Mohan Galot and three others have suffered a major blow in their attempt to block various criminal cases pending before magistrates courts.

High Court judge Freda Mugambi dismissed the suit with cost saying the issues raised in the petition have been canvassed, previously in courts of concurrent jurisdiction.

Galot, two directors and company secretary of four of his companies, Galot Industries, Manchester Outfitters, Kings Woolen Mills and London Distillers wanted to stop six criminal cases filed against pending in various courts.

Galot, Rajeev Modi, Pushpinder Singh Mann and Jophece Yogo claimed that the smooth operation and business affair of the four companies have been threatened by the institution of the criminal charges against them.

Galot has been fighting with his nephews Pravin Galot, Rajesh Galot and Narendra Galot over the ownership and operations of the four companies.

He claimed in the petition that there were irregular activities of forgery, corruption and collusion between his nephews and government officials and the DPP has refused to act on the complaints. 

It was his case that the irregular activities have been aimed at embarrassing, harassing and defrauding him and despite reports having been made to their respective offices about, the offices failed to protect him or take legal action against his nephews.

“The irregular activities of the interested parties are the cause of the disputed ownership over the companies. As a result of the dispute, there are a total of seven civil suits filed and currently before the courts touching on the ownership and management of the companies,” he claimed in court documents.

Galot contended that six criminal cases have been filed by his nephew, during the pendency of the civil cases, allegedly with the support and assistance of DPP, DCI and the AG.

Justice Mugambi, however noted, that the petition and the previous suits and applications had a common thread running through all which was the question of the independence of DCI vis a vis their right to fair trial, the right to fair administrative action; the violations of their constitutional rights and the question of stay of criminal proceedings.

“I have no doubt that the issues that the petitioners seek to argue and challenge in the current petition are well settled albeit by different divisions of the High court,” noted the Judge.

Justice Mugambi noted that the evidence before her showed that there had been no less than five pronouncements made by courts of concurrent jurisdiction which have all dismissed similar applications for stay or withdrawal of the criminal proceedings.

The judge reiterated her finding that the issues raised in this petition have been previously canvassed in other forums which the respondents expended time and costs to defend.

The petitioners then filed this petition which again, the respondents have successfully defended at their cost. On this basis I am inclined to award costs to the respondents.

She observed that there was an untidy, embarrassing and perplexing situation created by a multiplicity of applications and suits that have clogged the judicial system for an inordinately long time, some spanning to close to 17 years.