1. The Plaintiffs commenced this suit by way of a Plaint dated 22 March 2021 seeking declarations of breach of contract and fraud, special damages of USD 1,390,164, general damages, interest, and costs.
2. The facts giving rise to this claim are that in September 2020, the 2nd plaintiff was introduced to the 1st defendant, a Kenyan company, and subsequently to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants, who were presented as financiers and gold traders capable of supporting the plaintiffs’ investment needs.
3. Following meetings, the plaintiffs entered into an investment agreement dated 1/10/2020 with the 3rd defendant for USD 500 million. However, instead of providing capital, the 4th defendant proposed that the plaintiffs purchase 27 pallets of gold allegedly owned by the 3rd defendant and stored at JKIA, sell it in Turkey and use the proceeds as project capital. A sale and purchase agreement was signed, and the 5th defendant, introduced as an advocate, received USD 23,000 for purported ownership-transfer processes.
4. The plaintiffs were repeatedly asked to make further payments for documentation, taxes, transport, and release of the gold. They relied on assurances from the 2nd and 4th defendants and paid various sums through the Hawala system between October and December 2020, totaling USD 1,390,164. Despite these payments, no gold was delivered. The defendants claimed that the gold had been detained at JKIA, then later in Uganda, and sought even more funds for release and transport. The plaintiffs made additional payments, but the gold was never released or delivered to Turkey.
5. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants breached the agreements and had acted fraudulently by misrepresenting themselves as genuine investors and gold traders, using forged documents, and colluding to obtain the plaintiffs’ funds. They asserted that the entire transaction was an orchestrated scheme to defraud them.
6. The plaintiffs sought declarations on breach of contract and fraud, special damages of USD 1,390,164, general damages, interest, costs and any further appropriate relief.
7. The plaintiffs relied on one witness, Dr. Mansour Muhammad. He stated that he was a director and shareholder of the 1st plaintiff and handled its capital-sourcing responsibilities and that the 1st plaintiff required substantial investment for three projects in Turkey, amounting to approximately USD 200,000,000.
8. He explained that in September 2020, he was introduced to the 1st defendant through one Abu Samir, who represented that the 1st defendant and later the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants were willing to invest in the projects. A meeting followed between the witness, the 2nd defendant, and one Janmat Mohammed, who claimed to represent the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant was introduced as a former Malian general and gold trader operating through the 3rd defendant.
9. Negotiations culminated in an agreement dated 1/10/2020 in which the 3rd defendant was to invest USD 500,000,000 in the 1st plaintiff’s projects. However, the 4th defendant later proposed that instead of providing capital, the plaintiffs should buy 27 pallets of gold from the 3rd defendant, sell the same in Istanbul, and use the proceeds to fund the projects.
10. The witness stated that the 4th defendant introduced him to the 5th defendant, who was falsely presented as an advocate. The plaintiffs then paid USD 23,000 for change of ownership of eight pallets of gold. An escrow management agreement was also signed with Squaire Afrilaw Consultants.
11. PW1 testified that from early October 2020, the plaintiffs were repeatedly asked to pay various sums allegedly for taxes, documentation, and transportation of the gold. Payments were made through the Hawala system upon confirmation by the 2nd defendant. Additional payments were demanded after the 5th defendant claimed that another businessman had gold for sale. The plaintiffs made further payments, but no gold was delivered.
12. Later, the defendants claimed that the gold could not be shipped without an additional USD 600,000, and subsequently alleged that the gold had been seized in Uganda. The plaintiffs were asked to make further payments to facilitate release and documentation, which they did. Despite all payments, the defendants failed to deliver any gold.
13. The plaintiffs eventually learnt that the narrative of arrest by Interpol and seizure of gold in Uganda was false. A purported acknowledgement of debt executed in January 2021 by one Brigit Onyango was also used in an attempt to solicit more money.
14. In total, the plaintiff is asserted to have paid USD 1,390,164. The witness stated that the defendants acted fraudulently, used forged documents, misrepresented themselves as genuine gold traders, and conspired to obtain money from the plaintiffs. The witness asserted that the defendants breached the agreements by failing to provide investment funds, failing to deliver 718 kg of gold, and failing to ship the gold to Turkey.
15. The suit is unopposed as the defendants were served with the pleadings, but they did not enter an appearance nor did they participate in these proceedings. The matter then proceeded for formal proof hearing on 3/7/2025.
Analysis and determination.
16. In support of their case, the plaintiffs filed written submissions dated 21/7/2025. I have considered the same together with the trial bundle filed by the plaintiffs.
17. In the case of Peri Formwork Scaffolding v White Lotus Projects Limited [2021] eKLR, it was held:
“In this regard, in a formal proof hearing, a party with the onus of adducing evidence must produce such sufficient evidence which must satisfy the court as to its truth.”
18. The role of the court in a formal proof hearing is to analyse the evidence of the plaintiff in order to determine its truth. In this case, the plaintiff has the obligation to produce evidence to prove that the defendant breached the terms of the loan agreements.
19. The issue for determination is whether the parties entered into binding agreements, if so whether the defendants breached its terms.
20. A background of this dispute as narrated in the plaint is that the 2nd plaintiff was introduced to the 1st defendant, a Kenyan company, and later to the 2nd–5th defendants, who were presented as financiers and gold dealers able to support the plaintiffs’ investment plans.
21. The plaintiffs asserted that after a series of meetings, they signed an investment agreement on 1/10/2020 with the 3rd defendant for USD 500 million. However, instead of providing funding, the 4th defendant proposed that the plaintiffs buy 27 pallets of gold allegedly owned by the 3rd defendant and stored at JKIA, sell it in Turkey and use the proceeds as project capital. A sale agreement was executed, and the 5th defendant, introduced as an advocate, received USD 23,000 for supposed ownership-transfer formalities.
22. The plaintiffs stated that they were then pressed to make additional payments for documents, taxes, transport, and release of the gold. Relying on assurances from the 2nd and 4th defendants, they paid various amounts through the Hawala system between October and December 2020, totaling USD 1,390,164, but no gold was delivered.
23. I have analyzed the plaintiff’s trial bundle. The aforementioned investment agreement is found on pages 30-32 thereto. I note that the agreement is vague and does not disclose who the parties are nor does it state the purpose of the agreement. It is also not clear who signed the agreement.
24. I note further that the plaintiffs did not attach the sale and purchase of gold agreement in the bundle of documents despite the fact that it is listed as one of the documents therein.
25. Additionally, the plaintiffs produced three invoices from the 1st defendant to the 1st plaintiff, each dated 1/10/2020, and a 4th invoice dated 28/11/2020 from the 3rd defendant to the plaintiffs. The figures in the invoices are USD 191,292, USD 196,536, USD 213,864, and USD 455,000 respectively.
26. The plaintiffs did not, however, provide evidence that the amounts quoted in the invoices were indeed remitted to the defendants.
27. Additionally, the plaintiffs produced an escrow management agreement on pages 39-43. The agreement establishes an agreement between Squire Afrilaw Consult Limited as the escrow agent, the 2nd plaintiff, and an individual known as Hamed Dicko.
28. Based on the foregoing, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have not proved, even on a balance of probabilities, that they paid various amounts totaling USD 1,390,164 for the delivery of gold which was not delivered to them. There is no credible evidence of an investment agreement, a sale and purchase agreement, nor proof that the plaintiffs did indeed pay such sums to the defendants.
29. In the absence of such evidence, the court cannot grant the orders sought in the plaint. The plaintiffs’ case is devoid of merit and is therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs since the Defendant did not participate in these proceedings.
30. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
18TH DECEMBER 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Allan
.…………..for the Plaintiff
….……………. for the Defendant
2. The facts giving rise to this claim are that in September 2020, the 2nd plaintiff was introduced to the 1st defendant, a Kenyan company, and subsequently to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants, who were presented as financiers and gold traders capable of supporting the plaintiffs’ investment needs.
3. Following meetings, the plaintiffs entered into an investment agreement dated 1/10/2020 with the 3rd defendant for USD 500 million. However, instead of providing capital, the 4th defendant proposed that the plaintiffs purchase 27 pallets of gold allegedly owned by the 3rd defendant and stored at JKIA, sell it in Turkey and use the proceeds as project capital. A sale and purchase agreement was signed, and the 5th defendant, introduced as an advocate, received USD 23,000 for purported ownership-transfer processes.
4. The plaintiffs were repeatedly asked to make further payments for documentation, taxes, transport, and release of the gold. They relied on assurances from the 2nd and 4th defendants and paid various sums through the Hawala system between October and December 2020, totaling USD 1,390,164. Despite these payments, no gold was delivered. The defendants claimed that the gold had been detained at JKIA, then later in Uganda, and sought even more funds for release and transport. The plaintiffs made additional payments, but the gold was never released or delivered to Turkey.
5. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants breached the agreements and had acted fraudulently by misrepresenting themselves as genuine investors and gold traders, using forged documents, and colluding to obtain the plaintiffs’ funds. They asserted that the entire transaction was an orchestrated scheme to defraud them.
6. The plaintiffs sought declarations on breach of contract and fraud, special damages of USD 1,390,164, general damages, interest, costs and any further appropriate relief.
7. The plaintiffs relied on one witness, Dr. Mansour Muhammad. He stated that he was a director and shareholder of the 1st plaintiff and handled its capital-sourcing responsibilities and that the 1st plaintiff required substantial investment for three projects in Turkey, amounting to approximately USD 200,000,000.
8. He explained that in September 2020, he was introduced to the 1st defendant through one Abu Samir, who represented that the 1st defendant and later the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants were willing to invest in the projects. A meeting followed between the witness, the 2nd defendant, and one Janmat Mohammed, who claimed to represent the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant was introduced as a former Malian general and gold trader operating through the 3rd defendant.
9. Negotiations culminated in an agreement dated 1/10/2020 in which the 3rd defendant was to invest USD 500,000,000 in the 1st plaintiff’s projects. However, the 4th defendant later proposed that instead of providing capital, the plaintiffs should buy 27 pallets of gold from the 3rd defendant, sell the same in Istanbul, and use the proceeds to fund the projects.
10. The witness stated that the 4th defendant introduced him to the 5th defendant, who was falsely presented as an advocate. The plaintiffs then paid USD 23,000 for change of ownership of eight pallets of gold. An escrow management agreement was also signed with Squaire Afrilaw Consultants.
11. PW1 testified that from early October 2020, the plaintiffs were repeatedly asked to pay various sums allegedly for taxes, documentation, and transportation of the gold. Payments were made through the Hawala system upon confirmation by the 2nd defendant. Additional payments were demanded after the 5th defendant claimed that another businessman had gold for sale. The plaintiffs made further payments, but no gold was delivered.
12. Later, the defendants claimed that the gold could not be shipped without an additional USD 600,000, and subsequently alleged that the gold had been seized in Uganda. The plaintiffs were asked to make further payments to facilitate release and documentation, which they did. Despite all payments, the defendants failed to deliver any gold.
13. The plaintiffs eventually learnt that the narrative of arrest by Interpol and seizure of gold in Uganda was false. A purported acknowledgement of debt executed in January 2021 by one Brigit Onyango was also used in an attempt to solicit more money.
14. In total, the plaintiff is asserted to have paid USD 1,390,164. The witness stated that the defendants acted fraudulently, used forged documents, misrepresented themselves as genuine gold traders, and conspired to obtain money from the plaintiffs. The witness asserted that the defendants breached the agreements by failing to provide investment funds, failing to deliver 718 kg of gold, and failing to ship the gold to Turkey.
15. The suit is unopposed as the defendants were served with the pleadings, but they did not enter an appearance nor did they participate in these proceedings. The matter then proceeded for formal proof hearing on 3/7/2025.
Analysis and determination.
16. In support of their case, the plaintiffs filed written submissions dated 21/7/2025. I have considered the same together with the trial bundle filed by the plaintiffs.
17. In the case of Peri Formwork Scaffolding v White Lotus Projects Limited [2021] eKLR, it was held:
“In this regard, in a formal proof hearing, a party with the onus of adducing evidence must produce such sufficient evidence which must satisfy the court as to its truth.”
18. The role of the court in a formal proof hearing is to analyse the evidence of the plaintiff in order to determine its truth. In this case, the plaintiff has the obligation to produce evidence to prove that the defendant breached the terms of the loan agreements.
19. The issue for determination is whether the parties entered into binding agreements, if so whether the defendants breached its terms.
20. A background of this dispute as narrated in the plaint is that the 2nd plaintiff was introduced to the 1st defendant, a Kenyan company, and later to the 2nd–5th defendants, who were presented as financiers and gold dealers able to support the plaintiffs’ investment plans.
21. The plaintiffs asserted that after a series of meetings, they signed an investment agreement on 1/10/2020 with the 3rd defendant for USD 500 million. However, instead of providing funding, the 4th defendant proposed that the plaintiffs buy 27 pallets of gold allegedly owned by the 3rd defendant and stored at JKIA, sell it in Turkey and use the proceeds as project capital. A sale agreement was executed, and the 5th defendant, introduced as an advocate, received USD 23,000 for supposed ownership-transfer formalities.
22. The plaintiffs stated that they were then pressed to make additional payments for documents, taxes, transport, and release of the gold. Relying on assurances from the 2nd and 4th defendants, they paid various amounts through the Hawala system between October and December 2020, totaling USD 1,390,164, but no gold was delivered.
23. I have analyzed the plaintiff’s trial bundle. The aforementioned investment agreement is found on pages 30-32 thereto. I note that the agreement is vague and does not disclose who the parties are nor does it state the purpose of the agreement. It is also not clear who signed the agreement.
24. I note further that the plaintiffs did not attach the sale and purchase of gold agreement in the bundle of documents despite the fact that it is listed as one of the documents therein.
25. Additionally, the plaintiffs produced three invoices from the 1st defendant to the 1st plaintiff, each dated 1/10/2020, and a 4th invoice dated 28/11/2020 from the 3rd defendant to the plaintiffs. The figures in the invoices are USD 191,292, USD 196,536, USD 213,864, and USD 455,000 respectively.
26. The plaintiffs did not, however, provide evidence that the amounts quoted in the invoices were indeed remitted to the defendants.
27. Additionally, the plaintiffs produced an escrow management agreement on pages 39-43. The agreement establishes an agreement between Squire Afrilaw Consult Limited as the escrow agent, the 2nd plaintiff, and an individual known as Hamed Dicko.
28. Based on the foregoing, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have not proved, even on a balance of probabilities, that they paid various amounts totaling USD 1,390,164 for the delivery of gold which was not delivered to them. There is no credible evidence of an investment agreement, a sale and purchase agreement, nor proof that the plaintiffs did indeed pay such sums to the defendants.
29. In the absence of such evidence, the court cannot grant the orders sought in the plaint. The plaintiffs’ case is devoid of merit and is therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs since the Defendant did not participate in these proceedings.
30. It is so ordered.
SIGNED, DATED, and DELIVERED IN VIRTUAL COURT THIS
18TH DECEMBER 2025
ADO MOSES
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
C/A – Allan
.…………..for the Plaintiff
….……………. for the Defendant