A Rwandese national got a major relief on Monday after the court allowed him to be enjoined in a case where a Sh 300 M tech firm’s accounts are being investigated by police.
In the case, the court had granted orders to police for freezing and investigations Stay Online accounts and its director Kirimi Koome after police made the application for it.
However, this morning Desire Muhinyuza’s lawyer Danstan Omari told court that his client is the true owner of the company that was being swindled by Koome and asked to be enjoined.
Omari submitted that his client was the real owner of the funds and a victim of the fraud being investigated by police.
“We want to bring the real owner of the money and clear pretenders who say this is their money. We have laid sources of this money all the way from Rwanda,” Omari said
The victim has a right to be heard although we are acting together with the police.
Lawyer Cliff Ombeta opposed the application by Omari arguing that they had filed a case before the high court which had asked the lower court to forward the file so the court should not entertain their application.
The application was made before Justice Lilian Mutende and the state was represented so they are aware of the court’s directions
In his ruling, Senior Principal Magistrate Bernard Ochoi said it was true that the high court had called for the file but he only got to know about it through Ombeta.
“This court became aware of the order of the high court during the submissions by cliff ombeta the court had not received any order or letter requesting for this file but after the court adjourned to write the ruling, I was supplied with a letter requesting for the said file,” Ochoi said.
The court also noted that I have noted that one of the prayers before the high court by Koome was the stay of his proceedings and the high court did not grant this order so it was aware that it was scheduled for hearing today
He further ruled that the letter does not bar any party from being enjoined and the fact that the third res is enjoined after the directions will not bar the high court from making appropriate directions.
“The court finds that there is nothing that bars this court from admitting the said interested party in to the matter the issues of the real owner will be determined once the high court determines the matter,” Ochoi said.
