High Court sides with DPP, quashes Magistrate's ruling in Sh112 million fraud case
The two had been charged at the Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court with four counts, including stealing by a director, conspiracy to defraud, making false documents, and uttering false documents.
The High Court in Nairobi has overturned a magistrate's decision that had blocked the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from withdrawing charges against two directors accused of defrauding their company of over Sh112 million.
Justice Alexander Muteti ruled that the trial court erred in rejecting the DPP's application to halt proceedings against businessmen Jayesh Chavda and Tribhovan Chavda, directors of TRV Towers Limited.
More To Read
- Ex-Nairobi senatorial aspirant jailed over forged certificates, ordered to refund Sh3.9 million
- Court blocks JSC from acting on petition to remove Justice Sankale Ole Kantai
- Court dismisses petition on alleged discrimination in appellate appointments
- Court halts Constitution Amendment Bill assent pending petition by Katiba Institute
- Family seeks court intervention in disappearance of security expert Mwenda Mbijiwe
- Court grants DPP 30 days to supply evidence in Wycliffe Wangamati graft case
The two had been charged at the Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court with four counts, including stealing by a director, conspiracy to defraud, making false documents, and uttering false documents.
The charges stemmed from allegations that between 2019 and 2023, the two siphoned Sh112 million from the company's accounts and forged documents to open bank accounts fraudulently.
However, before the pleas were taken, the DPP discovered that two parallel investigations, one by the Banking Fraud Investigation Unit (BFIU) and another by DCI Parklands, had been conducted over the same complaint.
Concerned about possible abuse of the legal process, the DPP moved to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code pending consolidation and review of the files.
But Chief Magistrate Ben Mark Ekuhbi rejected the request, terming it an attempt to shield the accused. He ordered the Chavdas to take plea, prompting the DPP to seek revision before the High Court.
In his ruling, Justice Muteti faulted the magistrate for usurping the DPP's constitutional mandate under Article 157 of the Constitution. He said courts should only deny withdrawal where there is clear evidence of bad faith.
"To allow continuation of a matter where the DPP is aware of parallel investigations would create a window for abuse of the criminal justice process," the judge observed.
The court also noted that the DPP acted promptly upon learning of the second investigation file, making the withdrawal application in good faith to avert injustice.
The judge emphasised that the DPP has discretion to review charges in the public interest and to safeguard fair trial rights.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the magistrate's order and directed that the case be withdrawn.
Justice Muteti stated that the DPP is now at liberty to review both files and determine whether to reinstitute charges after evaluating all the evidence.
Top Stories Today
