A criminal case involving a Ksh 706 million fraud has sparked intense legal wrangling between the prosecution, defense and the Complainant, following an attempt by the prosecution to withdraw the charges.
The court is expected to issue a ruling on the application to terminate the case on July 29, 2025.
At the center of the case are businessman Jayesh Kumar Prabhudas Kotecha and Midland Haulers Limited, who stand accused of orchestrating a massive fraud scheme involving over Ksh 706 million.
The case took a dramatic turn in June 2025 when the prosecution moved to withdraw the charges.
This decision drew sharp criticism from the complainant’s side, who argued that they had not been consulted and that the withdrawal undermines the quest for justice.
According to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the decision to seek withdrawal was informed by ongoing insolvency proceedings—Insolvency Petitions E012 of 2019 and E008 of 2019—before the High Court involving the same company.
The ODPP argued that the civil proceedings significantly intersect with the criminal case, and pursuing both simultaneously without definitive findings could amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
The accused are facing five criminal charges, including attempted fraud, improper handling of mortgaged property, illegal operation of a company under administration, and failure to cooperate with a court-appointed administrator.
Citing Article 157(2) of the Constitution, the ODPP asserted its legal mandate to terminate proceedings where deemed necessary. However, the complainant’s legal team strongly opposed the move.
The complainant’s lawyer accused the ODPP of misapplying its constitutional powers and acting contrary to the interests of justice.
He rejected the insolvency argument as irrelevant, noting that the court-appointed administrator—who also filed the initial complaint—is directly involved in the case.
He also pointed out that a similar justification was used in January 2024 to drop charges against another accused person, despite the case being ready for trial with witnesses prepared to testify.
“We had already completed a pre-trial conference. Witnesses were lined up, then suddenly the prosecution wants to walk away,” the lawyer said, accusing the ODPP of shielding the accused.
The complainant’s Lawyer further condemned the lack of communication to the complainant regarding the planned withdrawal, arguing that this violated victims’ rights to be kept informed and involved in the process.
.The court will determine later this month whether to approve the prosecution’s request to withdraw the case or to allow it to proceed to trial.
