The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed an application seeking to halt and withdraw criminal proceedings against businessman Jayesh Kumar Kotecha Prabhudas and Midland Hauliers Limited, ruling that the case should proceed to its full course.
Justice Alexander Muasya Muteti, sitting at the Milimani High Court, dismissed the revision application and upheld an earlier decision by the trial court rejecting the prosecution’s attempt to withdraw the charges. The ruling was delivered on August 18, 2026.
The case arises from criminal proceedings before the Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court, where Kotecha and Midland Hauliers face charges including conspiracy to defraud, fraudulent disposition of mortgaged goods and offences relating to the management of a company under administration. They have pleaded not guilty.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) had sought to withdraw the charges under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and was already the subject of two pending insolvency petitions before the High Court.
The ODPP argued that allowing the criminal case to continue could result in conflicting outcomes and would not serve the public interest.
The application was opposed by the interested party, who maintained that the allegations arose from the administration of the company and should be determined through the criminal justice process. The complainant also challenged the manner in which the withdrawal application had been handled, arguing that the victim had not been adequately informed or consulted.
In his determination, Justice Muteti noted that the existence of insolvency proceedings did not, by itself, resolve the criminal allegations against the accused.
The court observed that the primary purpose of an insolvency petition is not to determine whether criminal acts were committed by company directors.
The judge further held that the existence of insolvency proceedings could not shield directors from alleged criminal conduct that may affect the administration of a company.
The court found that the prosecution appeared ready to proceed with the criminal case and that there was no indication that evidence was lacking. It consequently held that it was appropriate for the criminal proceedings to run their full course, with the allegations to be determined on the basis of evidence presented before the trial court.
Justice Muteti also rejected the argument that withdrawing the case would be in the public interest. Instead, he held that prosecuting persons alleged to have disposed of property belonging to a company under administration serves a public policy objective by deterring such conduct and supporting the implementation of the Insolvency Act.
The court dismissed the revision application, vacated the stay of proceedings and directed that the file be returned to the lower court for further proceedings.
The parties were, however, encouraged to consider alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to address their wider dispute even as the criminal case proceeds.
The ruling leaves the criminal case against Kotecha and Midland Hauliers Limited active before the Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court.