Court blocks ODPP’s bid to drop Sh707 million fraud case against businessman Jayesh Kumar
As a result, Kumar will continue to face charges of orchestrating a complex fraud scheme that allegedly defrauded Prime Bank Limited of Sh706,989,273.
A Nairobi court has rejected an attempt by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) to withdraw a high-profile fraud case involving businessman Jayesh Kumar, accusing the prosecution of acting in secrecy and disregarding the rights of the complainant.
Milimani trial Magistrate Carolyne Mugo declined the ODPP’s application, ruling that the prosecution had misused its powers.
More To Read
- DPP Renson Ingonga denies executive influence in activists’ terror charges
- Terrorism or protest? What Kenyan law says about anti-government demos and charges
- ODPP defends use of terrorism charges against protesters amid public outcry
- ODPP distances itself from Wajir Huduma Centre boss disappearance, cites no arrest powers
- Human rights groups decry 'systematic assault' on democracy amid wave of arrests in Kenya
- Parliament raises concerns over ODPP’s 'special fund' proposal
As a result, Kumar will continue to face charges of orchestrating a complex fraud scheme that allegedly defrauded Prime Bank Limited of Sh706,989,273.
He is accused of fraud, mishandling mortgaged property, illegally operating a company under administration, and failing to cooperate with a court-appointed administrator.
The ODPP had filed to terminate the case, but the application met stiff opposition from the complainant’s legal team, who argued that the move was made without consultation or notification.
In her ruling, Magistrate Mugo noted that the case initially began in June 2021 with four accused persons. The charges were later amended in July 2024, with two complainants removed from the charge sheet.
She further observed that even as efforts were underway to extradite Kumar—who resides in the UK—the ODPP moved to withdraw the charges without informing the court of any formal review following the complainant's request.
Criticised timing
Magistrate Mugo criticised the timing of the withdrawal attempt, which was made just two days before the scheduled hearing.
She noted that the prosecution had conducted a pretrial with two witnesses on June 9, 2025, and had instructed them to appear for the hearing set for June 11.
“In fact I dare say, the whole application was shrewd in secrecy since two days prior to the hearing on the June 9, 2025 the prosecution actually conducted a pretrial with two witnesses and notified them to attend court for the hearing and indeed on the 11th of June 2025 the two witnesses were in court ready to proceed when the rag was pulled over their feet and the application for withdrawal was made...” ruled Magistrate Mugo.
She went on to question whether the complainant had any legal standing before a case could be withdrawn, stressing that under Kenyan law, victims are not mere bystanders in criminal proceedings.
“Victims are no longer mere spectators. Their rights are enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution and further protected under the Victim Protection Act,” she said.
The Magistrate emphasised that victims must be involved at every stage of the judicial process, particularly in decisions concerning the withdrawal of charges.
In conclusion, the court found that the prosecution had failed to provide adequate reasons for discontinuing the case and had made no effort to involve or notify the complainant. The application to withdraw the charges was therefore dismissed.
Top Stories Today
