By Were Kelly
Nairobi, Kenya – June 11, 2025 – For the second time, prosecutors are trying to drop fraud charges against businessman Jayesh Kumar Prabhudas Kotecha, saying investigations are still not complete.
The case was mentioned on June 11, 2025, before Principal Magistrate Carolyn Nyaguthii Mugo, with the accused present in court.
According to the prosecution, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has asked them to withdraw the case because of two pending insolvency cases in the High Court — Insolvency Petition E012 of 2019 and E008 of 2019— involving the company in question.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. Previous attempts to withdraw the case have also delayed the trial.
Kotecha and Midland Haulers Limited, which is under administration, are facing five charges.
These include trying to defraud, mishandling mortgaged goods, running a company illegally during administration, and refusing to give important information to the court-appointed administrator.
Prosecutors argue that the issues raised in the insolvency cases cover much of what is being questioned in the criminal case.
They say there’s no clear evidence of a crime and that pushing the trial forward could be a misuse of the justice system.
They also pointed to Article 157(2) of the Constitution, which gives the DPP power to stop such cases if needed.
But the lawyer representing the complainant disagreed strongly.
He said the DPP is misusing their power and not acting in the interest of justice or the public.
He also criticized the reliance on the insolvency cases, saying it was misleading.
According to the lawyer, the administrator of Midland Haulers is not just a witness — they are actually the one who reported the matter.
He reminded the court that in January 2024, a similar application led to charges being dropped against another accused person.
Back then, the prosecution said continuing the case would slow things down.
“The DPP’s actions are questionable,” the complainant’s lawyer told the court. “We had already held a pre-trial and witnesses were ready. Then suddenly, the prosecution wants out.”
He also raised concerns that the complainant was not properly informed that the case was being dropped, even though victims have a right to that information.
“With all due respect, this looks like the justice system is being misused. It feels like the DPP is protecting suspects instead of letting justice take its course,” he added.
When submitting, the Advocate watching brief for the Complainant emphasized the seriousness of the matter:
“The DPP has applied to withdraw a case involving Kshs. 1 billion. The Complainant may seek to have the DPP impeached for abusing his powers.”
The defence team responded by presenting three previous court rulings that support the DPP’s right to withdraw cases.
One of the rulings was by Lady Justice Martha Koome in the case of Republic vs. Enock Wekesa, which said the DPP must balance public interest with justice.
The defence said the accused also has rights that need protecting and asked the court to allow the withdrawal.
The prosecution maintained that the DPP’s office is independent and can’t be forced to continue with cases that aren’t ready.
They also said the complainant’s rights were not being ignored, and if they still had concerns, they could raise them through the right legal channels.
Magistrate Mugo said that since the prosecution had filed a formal request, the court would allow both sides to present their arguments before making a final decision.
She adjourned the case to July 15, 2025, to confirm whether the defence had filed their written submissions and to set a date for the ruling.
The court also asked all parties to be ready to present their final arguments on that day.
