Trader to wait longer for Sh30m luxury car
Businessman Jared Kiasa Otieno (right) and his co-accused at the Milimani Law Courts in May 2019. The two appeared for a ruling on bond in a case in which they were charged with conspiracy to defraud Mr Sounthorn Chanthavong by pretending they could sell him gold. FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP
What you need to know:
- The High Court’s anti-corruption division on November 20, last year, revisited an order that barred Mr Otieno from using, selling or transferring the vehicle to anyone else.
This meant that the ARA, which had impounded the luxury vehicle pending completion of investigations, would be compelled to return it to Mr Otieno.
Mr Jared Kiasa Otieno, the chief suspect in a fake gold investigation, will have to wait longer in his bid to have detectives surrender a Sh30 million luxury vehicle.
Anti-corruption court judge John Onyiego dismissed an application by Mr Otieno to have the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) surrender the custom made 2015 Porsche Panamera to him.
Mr Otieno is at the centre of a Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) investigation into a racket that conned a Dubai royal of Sh300 million while claiming to be able to sell him gold worth Sh300 million.
The car was impounded last year alongside a custom-made 2018 Bentley Continental GT worth at least Sh47 million as detectives investigated the fake gold ring that has since entangled embattled Ford-Kenya party leader Moses Wetang’ula.
IMPOUNDED VEHICLE
The High Court’s anti-corruption division on November 20, last year, revisited an order that barred Mr Otieno from using, selling or transferring the vehicle to anyone else.
This meant that the ARA, which had impounded the luxury vehicle pending completion of investigations, would be compelled to return it to Mr Otieno.
Aggrieved by the court’s decision, the ARA asked both the anti-corruption court and the Court of Appeal to temporarily stop execution of the seizure orders, as it challenged their overturning.
Owing to scarcity of hearing dates, the ARA has been seeking extension of the orders stopping execution of the directive that would have allowed the suspect to take back his vehicle.
On April 27, Mr Otieno filed a fresh application seeking to recover the vehicle on grounds that the ARA has been abusing the court process by seeking extension of orders barring him from recovering his vehicle.
ARA, however, argued that the Court of Appeal had also issued an extension, hence the High Court would be attempting to supervise a superior court in allowing Mr Otieno to take back his vehicle.
COVID-19 PANDEMIC
The last extension that the ARA secured and which allowed it to keep the car, was issued in April, and was to last for two months.
Justice Onyiego has now ruled that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, parties in court must adapt to a new mode of operation and that releasing Mr Otieno’s car will be premature.
The judge argued that parties must have their day in court, so that a fair decision is made because it would be premature to set aside the interim orders and direct release of the vehicle.
“From the face of the record, there is no error apparent nor mistake or discovery of any new evidence or material facts or any other sufficient reason to warrant review or setting aside interim stay orders which had lapsed at a unique time when courts could not sit due to coronavirus and then extended on April 23,” he said.
“To set motor vehicle the subject of stay application and orders pending hearing and determination will be premature. However weak and unmeritorious the application may be, parties should have their day in court,” Justice Onyiego ruled.
