Blow to DPP after court reinstates Sh300m fraud case against businessman

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Renson Ingonga, has suffered a blow after the High Court reinstated land fraud charges amounting to Sh300 million against businessman Abdirahman Muhumed Abdi alias Abdi.

Justice Alexander Muteti of the Milimani High Court Criminal Division set aside a ruling by the Chief Magistrate’s Court that had allowed withdrawal of the criminal case against Abdi, saying it disregarded the rights of the complainant, Parminder Singh Sethi, a Director of Pansiba Limited, and misapplied the law.

“This court finds that the decision by the Honourable Magistrate allowing the withdrawal of the case under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code was improper, irregular and incorrect in law,” ruled Justice Muteti.

The case, Milimani Criminal Case No. E560 of 2024 against Abdi, alleged to be a brother-in-law of former DPP and current NIS boss Noordin Haji, had been withdrawn by the DPP on the grounds that a civil suit on the same subject was pending before the Environment and Land Court.  

However, the complainant, Pansiba Limited director, through his lawyer Ben Musundi, moved to the High Court, arguing that the withdrawal was unlawful and prejudicial, accusing Ingonga of attempting to shield his predecessor, Noordin Haji’s brother-in-law.

Musundi urged the judge to overturn the decision by the DPP since he had failed to provide any credible reasons for the sudden withdrawal, even before any witnesses had testified. “This is not a minor dispute; it involves deliberate forgery and fraudulent acquisition of land worth hundreds of millions,” the lawyer told the court.

“My client, a legitimate businessman, is present in court today and ready to give his testimony,” he added.

According to the charge sheet, Muhumed is accused of forging land documents in an attempt to unlawfully acquire two parcels, LR No. 209/10848 and LR No. 209/10849, by merging them into LR No. 209/16790, all valued at Sh300 million. He is said to have then forged a certificate of title purporting it to be authentic and issued by the Ministry of Lands.

“The forged title was part of an elaborate scheme to dispossess my client’s company, Pansiba Limited, of its land. This is a clear case of economic crime and must be allowed to run its full course in court,” the lawyer added.

The businessman told the court he had invested heavily in the disputed land and that justice would not be served if the case was terminated prematurely. “I want the court to hear the evidence. We have already complied with all pre-trial requirements, and the prosecution witnesses are ready to testify,” he said.

The lawyer told the court that no new facts or material evidence had been presented by the accused person in their letter to the DPP to warrant a review of the charges as recommended. Musundi said investigations into the land fraud case took at least ten years.

"The arrest of the accused took place in Dubai, where he had fled after committing the fraud. The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) had to seek the assistance of Interpol, which issued a Red Notice for his arrest and deportation back to Kenya to face the charges. All this work by the DCI cannot be in vain. The evidence against the accused is glaring and overwhelming," the lawyer stated.

He added: "The accused person has several other similar cases pending before various courts. Allowing him to walk scot-free would undermine the rule of law, the administration of justice, and would constitute a mockery of the criminal justice system."

Justice Muteti agreed, holding that the trial magistrate ignored crucial provisions of the Victims Protection Act, which guarantees victims the right to be consulted before a withdrawal decision is made.

“It is no doubt that the victim’s voice was drowned in the arguments about the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw cases. Times have changed. The victim is no longer a passive participant in a criminal case; his concerns must be taken into account,” the judge stated.

The court further noted that the DPP’s justification for withdrawal, pending civil proceedings, was untenable, citing Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that criminal and civil proceedings may run concurrently.