Court Told Tycoon is Still Under Probe in Sh706M Fraud Case

NAIROBI, Kenya – The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has come under intense scrutiny for attempting to withdraw fraud charges against businessman Jayesh Kumar Prabhudas Kotecha for the second time, claiming investigations in the Sh706 million case remain incomplete.

The controversial move was highlighted during court proceedings on June 11, 2025, before Principal Magistrate Carolyn Nyaguthii Mugo at the Nairobi Law Courts, where the accused appeared in person.

Kotecha, alongside his transport company Midland Haulers Limited—which is currently under administration—faces five serious charges including conspiracy to defraud, mishandling mortgaged goods, operating a company illegally during administration, and failing to provide crucial information to court-appointed administrators.

The charges stem from allegations that Kotecha and his British co-director conspired to defraud Prime Bank Sh706.9 million by transferring mortgaged goods, involving heavy commercial vehicles that were allegedly moved without proper authorization.

Prosecutors told the court that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) seeks to withdraw the case due to two pending insolvency proceedings in the High Court—Insolvency Petition E012 of 2019 and E008 of 2019—both involving Midland Haulers Limited.

The prosecution argued that the issues raised in the insolvency cases overlap significantly with the criminal charges, claiming there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct.

They cited Article 157(2) of the Constitution, which grants the DPP discretionary powers to discontinue prosecutions when deemed necessary.

The complainant’s legal representative mounted a fierce challenge to the withdrawal application, accusing the DPP of abusing prosecutorial powers and failing to serve the interests of justice and the public.

“The DPP’s actions are questionable,” the complainant’s lawyer argued in court. “We had already held a pre-trial and witnesses were ready. Then suddenly, the prosecution wants out.”

The lawyer emphasized that this marks a troubling pattern, noting that in January 2024, a similar application resulted in charges being dropped against another accused person in the same case.

In a dramatic turn, the advocate watching brief for the complainant issued a stern warning: “The DPP has applied to withdraw a case involving Kshs. 1 billion. The Complainant may seek to have the DPP impeached for abusing his powers.”

The complainant’s legal team also raised procedural concerns, arguing that victims were not properly notified about the withdrawal application, despite their constitutional right to such information.

The case has a complex history involving multiple corporate entities and international connections. Records show that Kotecha’s son, Gaurav Jayesh Kumar Kotecha, has been the subject of an Interpol arrest warrant in connection with the fraud allegations and is reportedly studying in London.

Court documents reveal that the parties have been clients of Prime Bank since 2007, with Jayesh Kotecha serving as a common director who signed most communications with the bank.

The defense team countered by presenting three previous court rulings supporting the DPP’s authority to withdraw cases, including a judgment by Lady Justice Martha Koome in Republic vs. Enock Wekesa, which emphasized the need to balance public interest with justice considerations.

Defense lawyers argued that the accused also has rights requiring protection and urged the court to approve the withdrawal application.

The prosecution maintained that the DPP’s office operates independently and cannot be compelled to pursue cases that are not ready for trial.

They assured the court that the complainant’s rights were not being ignored and suggested that any remaining concerns could be addressed through appropriate legal channels.

Magistrate Mugo acknowledged the formal withdrawal application and ruled that both parties would be allowed to present comprehensive arguments before a final determination is made.

The case has been adjourned to July 15, 2025, when the court will confirm whether the defense has filed written submissions and set a date for the final ruling.

All parties have been directed to prepare their concluding arguments for that hearing.

This case highlights ongoing concerns about the use of prosecutorial discretion in high-profile fraud cases. Legal experts note that while the DPP has constitutional authority to withdraw cases, such decisions must be made transparently and in the public interest.

The Sh706 million fraud case represents one of the larger financial crime prosecutions in recent years, involving allegations of sophisticated schemes to defraud a major commercial bank through the manipulation of mortgaged assets.

As the legal battle continues, questions remain about the balance between prosecutorial independence and accountability, particularly when substantial public interests are at stake.

The next court appearance on July 15 will be closely watched as it may determine whether this high-stakes fraud case proceeds to trial or joins the growing list of withdrawn prosecutions that have sparked public debate about justice delivery in Kenya.