Popat & 9 others v Shah & 6 others [2022] KEHC 13937 (KLR)

Popat & 9 others v Shah & 6 others (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 571 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 13937 (KLR) (Crim) (18 October 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13937 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Criminal

Miscellaneous Criminal Application 571 of 2019

DO Ogembo, J

October 18, 2022

Between

Alnashir Popat

1st Applicant

Anwar Hajee

2nd Applicant

Hanif Somje

3rd Applicant

Jinnit Shah

4th Applicant

Mukesh Patel

5th Applicant

Imran Limited

6th Applicant

Reybolds Limited

7th Applicant

Kenblest Limited

8th Applicant

Abdumal Investiment Limited

9th Applicant

and

Republic of Kenya

Prosecution

and

Naaem Ahmed Shah

1st Accused

James Jamlick Kaburu

2nd Accused

Nasir Haiderali Jessa

3rd Accused

Zulfikar Haiderali Jessa

4th Accused

Nargis Aziz Jessa

5th Accused

W.E Tilley (Muthiga) Limited

6th Accused

and

Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation

Complainant

Ruling

1. This matter now comes up for the application by the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC), the applicant/Interested part dated 8. 7.2021. The application seeks that the Interested part be enjoined as such in this matter. None of the other parties to this matter have opposed this application, except the 2nd accused who has duly filed submissions to oppose the intended enjoinment.

2. In the submissions, it has been maintained that the applicant/Interested party has had ample time to seek the of enjoinment and that this present application is a delaying tactic to the disadvantage of the accused’s. That same therefore infringes on the right of the accused’s to determination of the trial within reasonable time as provided for Under Article 50(2)(e) of the constitution.The counsel for accused 2 replied on the following cases.i)Moses Wachira Versus Niels Bruel and 2 others, quoted in CCK and 4 others, Versus Royal Media Services and 7 Others, that;“In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an interested party, we are guided by this court’s decision in the Mumo Matemu case where it was held.“……. An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not a party to the case ab initio. He or she is one who will be affected by the decision of the court when it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or herself appear in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause.”ii)MK Versus MWM and Another, Cause No. 268/2013, that court has power to order enjoinment of a party suo moto to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, provided that such would not result in prejudice or injustice to the other party.

3. I have considered the submissions made in opposing this application. Foremost, it is noted that the intended interested party applicant is admitted to have been enjoined in and is an active participant in the proceedings before the lower court. In the present scenario, the 2nd accused in his objection has not shown any prejudice that he stands to suffer by the intended enjoinment of the interested party to these proceedings. On my part, I also do not see any.

4. I accordingly therefore dismiss the objection of the 2nd accused. I allow the application of the interested party/applicant dated 8. 7.2021 as prayed. Each party shall bear own costs of this application. It is so ordered.

D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE18TH OCTOBER, 2022. COURT:Ruling read out on-line in the presence of Ms. Dave for 3rd to 6th accused, Ms. Wairimu for Kibe Mungai and Mr. Karani for the Interested Parties, Mr. Yegon for 1st accused, Mr. Mackenzie for Kithi for 2nd accused and Ms. Akunja for the DPP.D. O. OGEMBOJUDGE18TH OCTOBER, 2022. 18th October 18, 2022Before Hon. D. O. Ogembo – J.Court assistant – KathomiMr. Karani:All parties had filed submissions on the application dated 20. 12. 2019. It seeks a review of the ruling of the lower court. We pray for date to highlight same.Ms. Dave:I agree with the submissions.Ms. Wairimu:I confirm the position. We pray for a ruling date.Mr. Yegon:We pray for ruling date.Mr. Mackenzie:We also pray for a ruling date.Ms. Akunja:We agree.Mr. Karani:We have always asked for highlightings.Court:Matter fixed for highlighting. Hearing 24. 1.2023.