How court wars for Mau Mau billions have delayed payouts

The struggle for justice by survivors of British atrocities, popularly known as Mau Mau, has been long and winding.

More than 50 years after the inhumane acts were meted on them by the British government in the period leading to the country’s independence in 1963, many still remain hopeful that justice will finally be served.

The courts, locally and in Britain, have hosted thousands of these ageing petitioners searching for compensation that would finally enable them to put their past behind them.

The first group of approximately 5,228 Mau Mau survivors were paid Sh2.5 billion by the British government in 2013 after an out-of-court settlement was reached. In the deal, the British government was to construct a monument in memory of the fighters killed during the Mau Mau war.

Currently pending before the British court, is a claim involving a different group of Mau Mau victims estimated to be 8,000.

However, a vicious legal tussle pitting local lawyers against those abroad, all claiming a stake in the Mau Mau case still pending before the British courts, has threatened to overshadow the actual victims.

The history of the dispute traces back to 2011 when lawyer Donald Rabala started dealing with some law firms in Britain in the processing of Mau Mau claims leading to a commercial relationship between them.

But, a dispute arose after Mr Rabala said the foreign law firms refused to pay him the agreed Sh1 million per month for his services as had been agreed between them.

Mr Rabala also claimed the said law firms used his company’s name to collect the Mau Mau claims for a period of 29 months without his consent, hence his demand to be paid damages.

Mr Crispin Oduor Obudo, a director of Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd, and Griffin Claims Management Ltd, had told the court that when he came to Kenya, he realised that Mr Rabala had not collected claims as agreed. Therefore, he said, he used some of Mr Rabala’s staff and employed others in collecting the claims.

“Lawyer Rabala was thus only useful in so far as witnessing the same was concerned,” said Mr Oduor who is a director of the two firms alongside Mr George Omondi Kagumba.

TANDEM LAW

The Law Society of Kenya had in a letter dated March 10, 2015 said the receipt stamps on some court papers showed that Tandem Law and Griffin Legal group of companies were working in partnership with Rabala & Company Advocates.

The society had also noted that its attention had been drawn to the fact that Griffin Legal group of companies, as the local agent of Tandem Law, received instructions from Mau Mau victims using Mr Rabala’s firm.

“There was adequate evidence before the court that lawyer Rabala’s name and stamps were being used by Mr Oduor without either Rabala’s knowledge or consent. This is not just an action in bad faith but is also an act of fraud,” observed High Court Judge Eric Ogola in his judgment on April 8, this year.

The judge said the court was satisfied that Mr Rabala has proved that he is entitled to general damages for abusive and unauthorised use of his name and tools of trade, and ordered the two directors and their firms to pay him Sh9 million.

The assessment was based on the fact that the use of Mr Rabala’s name and tools of trade has the capacity of earning the British law firms a huge amount of money in professional fee, and Mr Rabala is hence entitled to a fraction of that fee.

The other dispute involved a consultancy agreement between lawyer Harvey Agumba and Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd on December 1, 2011. The agreement required Mr Agumba to provide consultancy services as and when required.

The case by Mr Agumba, now deceased but who was substituted by his wife in the suit, was that he was also to provide technical legal advice in respect of Mau Mau Torture Claims with effect from December 1, 2011. He was to be paid a monthly retainer of Sh225,000.

CONCEAL PROFITS

The judge found that the evidence presented in court implied that Mr Agumba offered consultancy services to Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd for 15 months thus he would be entitled to Sh3.37 million from the said company, as retainer fees less Sh450,000 which he admitted he had already been paid.

“...it has been proved on a balance of probability that Mr Agumba was owed Sh2,925,000 based on that consultancy agreement,” said Justice Ogola.

Meanwhile, Mr Godfrey Otieno Onyango, suing on behalf of Ronald Onyango, had told the court that about December 26, 2011, Mr Ronald became a shareholder of Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd by virtue of a Trust Deed executed by he and Mr Oduor.

Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd was to collect and refer Mau Mau claims from Kenya to various solicitors within the UK with Griffin Legal UK.

It was, therefore, Mr Onyango’s case that Mr Oduor was Mr Ronald’s trustee, and that Mr Oduor was holding 400 shares on his behalf. Mr Kagumba, he said, held a further 400 shares.

Mr Onyango, accused the two directors, Mr Oduor and Mr Kagumba, of negligent management of Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd, and Griffin Claims Management Ltd, thus prejudicing Mr Ronald’s interest in the said companies.

Further, the two directors were accused of, in the past, transferring monies earned by the two companies to other entities without Mr Ronald’s knowledge and in violation of his rights as a shareholder, and concealing the profits and earnings.

“Ronald was entitled to a share of the agreed fees that would have been earned by Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd, Griffin Claims Management Ltd, and Griffin Legal UK, from the Foreign Commonwealth Office on behalf of the British government to Mau Mau victims,” Mr Onyango told the court.

The court found that Mr Ronald was entitled to information about the dealings of Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd and Mr Oduor, as his trustee, was obliged to provide any necessary information on the company.

“This court has acknowledged Ronald was entitled to 50 per cent ownership of Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd and it would also follow that he is then entitled to 50 per cent share of proceeds of the back end of the Mau Mau referral claims,” ruled Justice Ogola.

However, given the court is not privy to how much Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd could have earned from these Mau Mau claims or is yet to earn, “it is upon Mr Onyango to follow up as he, on behalf of Ronald, has interest in the said Griffin Legal Kenya Ltd”.

The court thus issued an order of tracing requiring Mr Oduor and Mr Kagumba, as well as the three firms, to deliver a list of all company and personal assets to Mr Ronald.

They were also ordered to produce a statement of accounts in respect of the three companies from inception to date together with all the list of assets and liabilities.
The case will be mentioned on June 10.