Mombasa tycoon Imran Khosla sued over Punjani aunt's property

Mombasa tycoon Imran Khosla is embroiled in court battles pitting Ali Punjani family members against each other.

In another case involving properties and money in banks, Zahra Salim sued Punjani’s relatives, Nazlin Aminmohamed Nathoo, Fareena Aminmohamed Nathoo and Amynaz Aminmohamed Nathoo, by Zahra Salim over a property in Mombasa dubbed Ratna Serviced Apartments.

Zahra sued Nazlin, Amynaz and Khosla on behalf of her mother Fatmabai Sherali who is Punjani’s aunt. Her lawyer, Hans Oichoe, argued that Fatmabai left her documents with Nazlin in 2014 when she fell ill, only for her to be locked out of the multimillion property.

.

Keep Reading business

•  BAT to pay Sh50 dividend despite 19pc profit dip
•  Appetite for Kenya's 'green gold' spawns new crop of millionaires Premium
•  Policy Statement promises nothing unusual in CS Mbadi's first Budget Premium
•  UNGA President Yang backs Equity's plan to boost youth innovation
•  Why you may not escape paying toll fees on major roads and highways Premium

According to Oichoe, her clients found that the apartment had been locked up using a different padlock and were allegedly informed that Fareena and Amynaz had bought it from Fatmabai.

The lawyer said they had lost at least Sh10 million in rent from 2014. “As result of the unlawful dispossession of and claim of ownership of the suit property by the defendants, the plaintiff’s mother has not only been denied the enjoyment of her rights attendant to ownership but also incurred financial loss of rent income from July 2014 to this date,” argued Oichoe.

In her supporting affidavit, Zahra claimed that Ratna’s management had introduced Khosla as the occupant of the contented property. She claimed he was introduced as ‘Imran’, adding that she was told he was the one paying a service charge.

“I seek an order in the judgment that the honourable court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order of eviction of the fourth defendant in the suit property,” argued Zahra.

In his response, Khosla wants the court to remove his name from the case. He said the reason for enjoining him was unclear and not based on facts. “The grounds for enjoining the fourth defendant or applicant herein is based on hearsay on allegations that the plaintiff was told by the management where no specific person has been mentioned, let alone evidence of the same being annexed herein,” argued Khosla’s lawyers Asinul and Associates.

In her further reply, Zahra urged the court only to strike out Khosla’s name if he declares or commits that he has no interest in the contested property. On the other hand, Nazlin, Fareena, Amynaz and Khosla, in a joint objection, asked the court to strike out the case. They argued that Zahra’s mother had no mental capacity to appoint her as a representative. They further stated she needed to get authority to sue or manage Fatmabai’s wealth or money first by going through the process provided for in the Mental Health Act. “The plaintiff lacks locus standi (has no right or ability to bring a legal action to a court of law) to institute the suit as they failed to comply with the provisions of the Mental Health Act Cap 248,’’ they replied.

They also denied the claims in a separate reply filed before the court. Nazlin, Fareena, Amynaz claimed that Fatmabai was given a loan which she used the property as security but failed to repay.

“In addition to paragraph seven hereinabove first to third defendants wish to state that the plaintiff’s mother was issued a loan to wit the said property was issued as the collateral for the said property, wherein the Plaintiff’s mother signed multiple undated cheques and undated transfer forms in the event that she was unable to repay the said amounts advanced,” the trio claimed.

They also alleged she took the money from Nazlin and added that the locks had never been locked or changed. In his reply, Khosla said the case was illegally brought against him as there was no evidence that he occupied the property or paid the service charge.

 Zahra, Nazlin and Fareena are also in another court battle over another apartment in Lavington, Nairobi. Zahra and her sister Farhana Salim sued Lancaster Development Limited, Nazlin and Fareena. Zahra and Farhana claimed that Lancaster offered them a three-bedroom apartment for Sh 18 million, which their mother paid in full. They alleged that upon entering, they found it needed repairs. They learned that Lancaster had transferred the building to their relatives despite paying the full purchase amount. They are seeking at least Sh28 million in compensation.

In response, Lancaster’s director, Shabeer Merali, admitted that the firm had a deal with Fatmabai. He said she negotiated to purchase the property for Sh13 million, but she did not pay the full amount. “I am aware that the plaintiffs’ mother was unable to complete the full payment of the proposed purchase price towards the purchase of the property,” replied Merali.

He alleged that Fatmabai entered into an oral agreement with Nazlin to pay Sh4.6 million balance and refund Sh 8.4 million which she had allegedly deposited. Merali told the court that the company transferred the apartment to Nazlin and Fareena after they had paid the purchase price.

On their end, Nazlin and Fareena argued that they had an agreement with Fatmabai that they would pay Lancaster Sh 4 million and refund her Sh 8 million before taking the apartment.

They alleged that they paid the money through her bank account. The two asked the court to dismiss the case.