The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is facing criticism after making a second attempt to withdraw a high-profile fraud case involving businessman Jayesh Kumar Prabhudas Kotecha and Midland Haulers Limited, which is currently under administration. The case concerns alleged fraud amounting to over Ksh 706 million.
Prosecutors claim the withdrawal request stems from ongoing insolvency proceedings Insolvency Petitions E012 of 2019 and E008 of 2019 before the High Court, involving the same company. They argue that these civil proceedings overlap significantly with the criminal charges and that continuing the trial without conclusive evidence could amount to abuse of the legal process.
The accused face five charges, including attempted fraud, mishandling mortgaged assets, unlawful operation of a company under administration, and refusal to cooperate with the court-appointed administrator.
The ODPP cited Article 157(2) of the Constitution, which grants it authority to terminate proceedings when necessary. However, this justification was strongly opposed by the complainant’s legal team.
The complainant’s lawyer accused the ODPP of misusing its constitutional mandate and acting against the interests of justice. He dismissed the reference to the insolvency matters as irrelevant, emphasizing that the court-appointed administrator also the complainant was the original source of the complaint.
He recalled that in January 2024, similar grounds led to the withdrawal of charges against another suspect, citing concerns from prosecutors that proceeding would slow down the case. “We had already conducted a pre-trial conference, and witnesses were ready to testify. Suddenly, the prosecution wants to walk away,” he said, accusing the ODPP of shielding suspects.
The lawyer also criticized the lack of communication to the complainant regarding the withdrawal move, arguing this violated victims’ rights to be informed.
“The DPP’s conduct raises serious concerns. If this continues, we may pursue impeachment proceedings against the DPP for abuse of office,” he warned.
In response, the defense cited three prior court rulings including one by Lady Justice Martha Koome in Republic vs. Enock Wekesa affirming the DPP’s discretion to terminate cases, provided a balance is struck between public interest and justice. They argued that the rights of the accused must also be upheld and urged the court to allow the withdrawal.
The prosecution maintained its independence, reiterating that the case is not trial-ready and that all actions are within legal bounds. They assured the court that the complainant’s rights were not being neglected and could still be pursued through appropriate channels.
Presiding Magistrate Mugo acknowledged the formal withdrawal request and scheduled the next session for July 15, 2025. The adjournment will allow both parties to confirm the filing of written submissions and prepare for a ruling.
