By Andrew Kariuki

A complainant in an ongoing court case struggled to respond to key questions during cross-examination, with his testimony marked by inconsistencies on issues relating to alleged financial loss, company operations and personal details.

During the proceedings, the witness was put to task to explain how he allegedly lost money in the matter before court. However, his responses remained unclear, with the defence repeatedly pressing him to provide a direct account of how the funds were lost and the role played by the company in the transactions.

At one point, the complainant attributed the movement of money to employees of the company, stating that funds were sent on behalf of the business. When asked to produce a company resolution authorising such transactions, he was unable to do so and instead referred generally to employment contracts.

The court also examined documents relating to the registration and operation of the company, Galden Key Travel Consultants. The complainant was questioned on inconsistencies in timelines, particularly how the alleged offences were said to have occurred before the company was formally registered. He did not clearly address the discrepancy, with the defence pointing to conflicting dates in the records presented.

Further confusion arose over the identity of the company, with different names appearing across documents, including “Golden Key” and “Galden Key.” The complainant acknowledged the documents but did not provide a clear explanation for the variations.

In addition, his responses on personal matters drew scrutiny. When initially asked whether he had a wife, he confirmed having one. However, under further questioning, he referred to two individuals as wives, prompting the defence to question the consistency of his statements.

The cross-examination also covered the structure of the company, including the number of directors and employees. The complainant gave approximate figures and at times appeared uncertain about specific details relating to the company’s operations.

Throughout the session, the defence highlighted contradictions in the complainant’s responses, particularly on financial transactions, corporate documentation and personal statements.

The court will continue to hear the matter.