Ghost of Kenya Bus Service Now Haunting Son of Mombasa Tycoon Mohammed Jaffar on Defaulted Loan
the respondents had requested a loan by way of special drawing rights to Kenya Bus services Mombasa limited under a loan agreement dated october 1998.
Mombasa deputy registrar Rita orora is set to issue directives on a matter where son to Mombasa tycoon Mohammed Jaffar, Mujtaba Jaffar has been sued for fraudulently obtaining a Loan of USD 3,578,413.92 from the East African Development bank.
Orora has directed that the matter be mentioned on Thursday, to allow the deputy registrar giver further directions on if the file will be placed before the principal judge to allocate a trial judge.
The directive to have the matter reheard at the court of appeal comes after the court of appeal ordered the file to be returned to the high court after finding that the trial judge erred in law by removing the suit by East African Development bank.
Court of appeal judges lead Wanjiru Karanja, Asije Mkahandia, and justice Kairu Gatembu dismissed the judgment by the trial judge and issued orders to have the matter heard afresh.
African Development bank in 2016 sued Jaffar Manoj now deceased, Amritlal Devani,and Mujtaba seeking to recover USD 3,578,413.92 and the interest of 12 % which the respondents had obtained from the plaintiffs as a loan.
The matter had been listed for hearing before Mombasa high court judge Kizito Mangale who has since been transferred.
In the suit African Development Bank in its affidavit has stated that the respondents had requested a loan by way of special drawing rights to Kenya Bus services Mombasa limited under a loan agreement dated october 1998.
The respondents defaulted in the repayment of the loan and as at 1st March 2003, the said amount of 3,578,413.92 and interest at 12% per annum was outstanding, in respect of which the Bank sought to recover from the respondents under the said guarantee.
Read also: Uber contributed an estimated KSh 14.1 billion to Kenya’s economy in 2023: Economic Impact Report
The court of appeal ruled that the finding by the learned Judge that the guarantee was not drawn by an advocate was arrived at without evaluating and appreciating all the evidence that had been placed before him.
The bench pointed out that It was not a clear case for striking out, the application.
The court of appeal judges observed that in reaching at his decision, the learned Judge failed to take into account considerations of which he should have taken account of.
“We are therefore entitled to interfere with exercise of discretion by the learned Judge,”the bench ruled.
Justice Otieno had thrown out the application on grounds that the finding or presumption by the learned Judge that the guarantee was not drawn by an advocate.
The matter is set to be mentioned on November 28.
About The Author
