Tycoon’s Plot To Evade Sh706 Million Fraud Case Falls Flat After Judge Dismisses DPP’s Withdrawal Deal

A Nairobi court has dealt a significant blow to businessman Jayesh Kumar Probudus Kotecha’s attempts to escape prosecution in a Sh706.9 million fraud case after Principal Magistrate Carolyne Mugo dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ controversial application to withdraw the charges.

Magistrate Mugo accused DPP Renson Ingonga of abusing the court process and operating with a “hidden agenda” by attempting to terminate the six-year-old case without consulting the complainant, Prime Bank Limited. The ruling came after the prosecution sought to withdraw charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code just days before the scheduled hearing in June 2025.

Kotecha, a British businessman and director of Midland Hauliers Limited, faces multiple charges including conspiracy to defraud Prime Bank Limited of the massive sum by allegedly transferring mortgaged vehicles without authorization. The charges stem from accusations that he disposed of three trucks valued at the disputed amount to Super Hakika Limited while Midland Hauliers was under bank administration.

The court heard that Midland Hauliers Limited was placed under the administration of Ponaningpali Venkanta Ramana Rao in 2020 after defaulting on a loan facility. Kotecha is accused of performing management functions without the administrator’s consent and failing to provide required company information to the court-appointed receiver manager.

Magistrate Mugo expressed particular concern over the timing of the DPP’s withdrawal application, noting that it came just two days after the prosecution had conducted pre-trial proceedings with witnesses who were ready to testify. “This court takes judicial notice that the DPP did not inform the complainant of the intention to withdraw the case against the accused persons as provided for under the law,” she ruled.

The magistrate emphasized that complainants have equal rights to accused persons in criminal proceedings and criticized the prosecution for treating the court as a “rubber stamp.” She rejected the DPP’s explanation that pending insolvency petitions in the High Court justified the withdrawal, pointing out that these cases were already pending when the decision to charge Kotecha was initially made.

Lawyer Elijah Mwangi, representing the bank-appointed administrator, had vigorously opposed the withdrawal application, arguing that it constituted an abuse of the court process and violated the complainant’s rights. The defense team maintained that eight witnesses were prepared to testify and that the case should proceed to its conclusion.

In her comprehensive ruling, Magistrate Mugo declared that “magistrates courts will not be used as rubber stamps by the DPP in the misapplication of the law and doing injustice to complainants in court.” She ordered that the case proceed to full trial starting October 6, 2025.

The fraud allegations against Kotecha include five counts covering conspiracy to defraud, fraudulent disposition of mortgaged goods, unauthorized management of a company under receivership, and failure to cooperate with the court-appointed administrator. The businessman has denied all charges and remains out on bond.

This case highlights growing concerns about prosecutorial conduct and the protection of victims’ rights in Kenya’s criminal justice system, with the court’s decision setting a strong precedent against arbitrary case withdrawals that bypass proper legal procedures.