Former President Mwai Kibaki and directors of a multi-million property in Nyeri will be forced to wait for a Ksh16 million payout from a multi-million project under their control.
In a report by the Daily Nation on Sunday, March 8, Judge Mary Oundo of the Environment and Land court is reported to have rejected an application to order the release of the money to a city-based firm Kamau Kuria and Company advocates.
According to the publication, the rent from the property owned by Kibaki and other directors goes to an account run by the law firm alongside another company identified as the Lucy Mwai Company.
The property in question is estimated to be generating a monthly income of Ksh200,000 and pitted the Kibaki-led team against a company identified as Mathingira Wholesalers Ltd.
Apart from the money, however, Kibaki and other directors wanted the court to order the substitution of two deceased founders Gadson Gitonga and Kibera Gatu.
In an application tabled on September 23, 2019, they fronted the names of Daniel Githinji to take the place of Gitonga and Egedios Mwangi Kibera and John Mwangi Kibera to take Gatu's place.
This suit was reportedly supported by an affidavit sworn by Kibaki on the same day that the application was filed and another by Kuria.
The firm is reported to have started in the 1970s with Kibaki and his elder brother Samuel Githinji at the helm, alongside friends Kimwatu Kayungu, Kiiru Gachuiga, Gadson Gitonga, and Kibera Gatu.
With time, however, new shareholders joined the company and allegedly attempted to wrest the control of the company from Kibaki and Kimwatu, one of the founders.
In an application in 2018 through his lawyer Gibson Kuria, Kibaki insisted that the new shareholders bought shares in total disregard of the memorandum and articles of association.
Justices Fatuma Sichale, Agnes Murgor, and J Kantai ruled in favor of Kibaki and returned the company to his control, a matter that the shareholders appealed.
In relation to this ruling, Justice Oundo ruled that it would be prejudicial to allow the application filed by Kibaki and his team on rent arrears while the appellate court was yet to determine the application filed by the shareholders to rectify the decision to return the company to Kibaki's control.
She thus dismissed the application as premature.
