'
The DPP through Ms Virginia Kariuki prosecution counsel wrote to the Deputy Registrar on 24 th October 2024 seeking a revision against a decision made by Honorable Ben Mark Ekuhbi on 24 th of October 2024.
It is important to reproduce the full contents of the letter so as to contextualize this application.
The letter reads:
The Deputy Registrar,
High Court of Kenya,
Criminal Division.
NAIROBI.
KENYA
Date: 24TH OCTOBER, 2024.
RE: APPLICATION FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 362 AND 364 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, CAP.75, LAWS OF KENYA
MILIMANI CHIEF MAGISTRATE''S COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. E988 of 2024 REVISION ON RULING AND ORDERS ISSUED BY HON. BEN MARK (SPM) ON 24/10/2024 UNDER CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY.
REPUBLIC-VERSUS - JEYESH CHAVDA AND TRIBHOVAN CHAVDA
We refer to the above matter.
We write to certify that this application is extremely urgent and should be placed before the learned head of the High Court''s Criminal Division as the order and ruling it seeks to have revised has far reaching and adverse ramifications on the pending Criminal Case No. E 988 of 2024 at Milimani chief Magistrate''s Court, as the trial Court on 24/10/2024 declined the prosecution''s application seeking leave to withdraw the charges under section 87(a) of the CPC and directed the intended accused persons/ Respondents to take plea on the 25/10/24 at 9.00 am, despite compelling grounds as to why the decision to charge needed to be reviewed, being laid before the
Court.
Prayers in the interim
The Court refused to grant leave to withdraw the charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC and directed the intended accused persons to take plea on 25/10/24, Hence the urgency.
We pray for stay of any further proceeding and ruling at the trial Court pending the hearing and final determination of this revision.
BACKGROUND
15. The Respondents, Jeyesh Chavda and Tribhovan Chavda were charged before the Chief
Magistrate''s Court at MILIMANI with four counts to wit; -
a) Stealing by director contrary to section 282 of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on diverse dates between 18th October, 2019 and 31st July, 2023 the respondents being directors of TRV Towers Limited, stole kshs. 112,000,000/- the property of TRV Towers limited, that came into their possession by virtue of their
employment.
b) Conspiracy to defraud contrary to section 317 of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on diverse dates between 16th October, 2019 and 31st July, 2023
the respondents with others not before court, conspired to defraud TRV Towers Limited
kshs. 112,000,000/-.
c) Making a false document contrary to section 357 (a) of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on 16th October, 2019, the Respondent with intent to defraud and without lawful authority jointly made Bank of Boroda Account opening document, purporting it to be genuine.
d) Uttering a false document contrary to section 353 of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on diverse dates between 16th October, 2019, the Respondent with intent to defraud, knowingly uttered a bank account opening document purporting it to have been signed by TRV Towers Limited directors.
16. THAT on the 25th of September 2024 the Director of Public Prosecution approved charges
against the two respondents after evaluating evidence submitted DCI Parklands.
17. THAT subsequently, the plea was registered that very morning and in fact, two pleas were registered that day and assigned Court file numbers E988/2024 and the other E989/2024, each being an independent file on its own.
18. THAT due to procedural technicalities on the part of judiciary case registration system, only Court file E989/2024 was availed in Court for plea taking in the morning and it was not until 3.00pm when Court file E 988/2024 was availed for plea taking.
19. THAT at the time plea was registered there was every intention by the Applicant for the respondents to take plea, however and unforeseeable to the Applicant, prior to 3 pm, it was brought to the DPP''s attention, of the existence of another file involving the same subject matter, over the same accused persons and filed by the same complainant, which was being investigated by Banking Fraud Unit and which had not been submitted to him.
2.THAT procedurally, this was not proper, as a matter cannot be subjected to two parallel investigations by different offices of the same institution, hereby being Parklands DCI and Banking Fraud Unit, both being under National Police Service.
THAT the evidence contained in the Banking Fraud file is material and needed to be taken into consideration before any decision to charge can be conclusively made by the DPP.
THAT there was a real and imminent threat of abuse of the legal process, if the Applicant application was not allowed, as afore mentioned, that it is neither procedural nor proper, for a matter to be subjected to parallel investigations on a complaint made by the same party, over the same subject matter and against similar parties, which could arrive at adverse conclusions.
THAT until the DPP evaluates the banking fraud file, which could contain evidence that is either inculpatory or exculpatory to the intended accused persons/ Respondents, a decision to charge cannot be said to have been made.
24.THAT this called for the immediate action by the Applicant, which was to seek the charges to be withdrawn before the respondents could take plea, as it was important for the DPP to evaluate evidence contained in both files before a conclusive decision could be made on whether to charge
or not.
25. THAT on the 26th of September 2024, the Applicant moved the Court with an oral application to
seek leave to withdraw the matter under section 87 (a) of the CPC.
THAT on 24th October, 2024 the Court delivered it ruling declining to grant the Applicant leave to withdraw the charges, on the ground that the Magistrate perused the correspondences from Banking Fraud Unit, which were submitted by Counsel watching brief for the complainant, and that he had formed the opinion that the Applicant''s application was not made in good faith.
27. THAT the Court errored and usurped itself powers constitutionally conferred to the Applicant, as declining to grant leave inevitably resulted in making the decision to charge in place of the Applicant, especially since the Applicant had submitted merited grounds as to why the decision to charge was not conclusive and needed to be reviewed.
28.THAT the material developments that had occurred before plea was taken could not have been preempted by the Applicant and thus the Applicant cannot be said to have made the application
in bad faith.
29. THAT the Applicant application was in fact made in order to prevent abuse of the legal process
and administer justice.
30. THAT the Court errored in failing to appreciate the role and mandate of the Applicant in the
institution of criminal proceedings as envisioned in Article 157 (6) (a). THAT the Court errored in inferring that the decision to charge was conclusively made, from perusing documents from an investigating body, submitted by Counsel watching brief.
THAT the Court errored in allowing the role of the Counsel watching brief to be held in competition with that of the Applicant, a role which should be jealously guarded.
THAT the Court errored in declining to grant leave to withdraw the charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC, as it allows abuse of the legal process.
Our contention
THAT on the 26th of September 2024, the Applicant moved the Court with an application to seek leave to withdraw the matter under section 87 (a) of the CPC on the grounds that:
a. the decision to withdraw the matter was reached guided by the decision to charge guidelines, provisions of the ODPP Act, 2013 and the National Prosecution Policy, which mandate the DPP to be objective, fair and independent in discharging his duty, a duty which includes continually reviewing cases to ensure interests of justice are protected at every stage of the prosecution process.
b. upon undertaking an appropriate review and the DPP forms an opinion that the matter
ought not be instituted, if already instituted, the same to be halted forthwith.
c. the ODPP being an independent and well-established constitutional office, it is the only
office solely mandated to prosecute in criminal proceedings through the DPP.
d. by preventing abuse of the legal process, the DPP is acting in exercise of the powers
conferred to him by the Constitution.
There was a real and imminent threat of abuse of the legal process, if the Applicant''s application was not allowed, as it was neither procedural nor proper, for a matter to be subjected to parallel investigations on a complaint made by the same party, over the same subject matter and against similar parties, yet the same was not to brought to the knowledge of the DPP at the time of making the decision to charge.
Your Lordship, we therefore humbly request this Honorable Court to call for and examine the records in Milimani Chief Magistrate''s Court Criminal Case E988 of 2024 pursuant to
Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and:
a) Determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings leading to the ruling and order
by the Court denying the prosecution leave to withdraw charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC, despite sufficient grounds having been laid by the prosecution as to why the decision to charge
needs to be reviewed.
Determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings leading to the ruling and order
issued on 24/10/2024 without giving cogent reasons and whether there is any provision of law that granted the Court authority to take over and exercise the prosecutorial mandate to make the decision to charge and if so, its regularity and/or correctness considering the provisions of Article
157 (6) (a) as read with Article 157 (6) (c) of the Constitution, in view of the peculiar circumstances
of this case.
c) Examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the entire proceedings in this case and the manner the Court conducted the proceedings and determine whether the Court held in competition, the role of the Prosecution, with that of the Counsel watching brief for the complainant.
d) Whether the said the grounds the Court to relied on in order to decline to grant leave to withdraw the charges, amounted to what the Court termed as the Applicant not acting in good faith,
despite the peculiar circumstances surrounding this case including the imminent threat of abuse of the legal process.
We urged this Honorable Court to set aside the orders denying the prosecution leave to withdraw charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC and set aside the orders directing the intended accused persons/Respondents to take plea on 25/10/24.
We also request this Court to issue in the interim stay orders, staying the Court from proceeding and/or making any further directions pending the hearing and final determination of this revision and any other orders that commends itself in the circumstances.
Yours faithfully,
VIRGINIA KARIUKI
PROSECUTION COUNSEL
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FOR: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
The respondents filed an affidavit in support of the DPP’s application sworn on 23 rd May 2025 by both respondents. In it the respondents have given a detailed and vivid account of matters touching on investigations and how the decision to charge was arrived at by the DPP.
It is imperative that this court lays bear the case by the respondents in support of the DPP thus the need to reproduce in extenso the affidavit by the respondents:-
2. THAT we have read the DPP''s Application for Revision dated 24th October, 2024 and where necessary, had the contents thereof explained to us by our Advocates on record and we swear this Affidavit in support of the said Application for Revision of Hon. Ben Mark Ekhubi (SPM)''s Ruling of 24th October, 2024 in Milimani CMCR Case No. E988 of 2024;
INTRODUCTION
3. THAT from the onset, we confirm that the accusations against us comprise no more than baseless allegations and trumped up charges founded on falsehoods and misrepresentations disguised as genuine complaints, a fact which we clearly demonstrated to the trial court;
4. THAT we therefore, acknowledge with gratitude and associate ourselves fully with the DPP''s averments in its Certificate of Urgency and Application for Revision herein, both dated 24th October, 2024;
5. THAT in addition, and for the benefit of this Court, we shall reiterate herein the averments in our Affidavit of 8th October, 2024 filed before the trial court particularly because in its ruling, the trial court failed to analyse the facts and issues raised therein at all;
6. THAT we therefore, urge this honourable court to patiently walk with us through this
Affidavit and ultimately lift the corporate veil behind which the individuals, disguising themselves as TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited are hiding to advance this malicious agenda. For the record, neither of these companies lost a coin under our watch from Bank of Baroda or any other bank, for the period alleged and/or at all;
7. THAT contrary to the allegations that the complainants herein are TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited, the real persons behind this scheme are five individuals namely, Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera, Vinod Narshi Lathia, Bhimji J. Bhudia and Patrick Sagwa Kisia. The first three are currently illegally posing as Directors, and unlawfully excluding Tribhovan Lalji Chavda from the Board of Directors of the companies while Bhimji J. Bhudia and Patrick Sagwa Kisia are purported employees thereof;
EVENTS PRECEDING THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS HEREIN
8. THAT since incorporation, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda was, and still is a Director and Shareholder of TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited. He is the majority shareholder of TRV Developers Limited, owning 51% of the total paid up shares thereof and also a shareholder of TRV Towers Limited owning 30% of the shares thereof (Annexed at pages 16 & 17 hereof and marked TLC-1 i & ii are CR-12 for the companies showing shareholding);
9. THAT Tribhovan Lalji Chavda was the Managing Director of the two companies. He ethically and professionally steered the companies without any financial scandal, real or percieved, for a record 16 years, until September 2023 when his Co-Directors, Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera and Vinod Narshi Lathia together with Bhimji J. Bhudia and Patrick Sagwa Kisia (hereinafter collectively referred to as ''The Five'') rocked the ship for their selfish, malicious gains;
10. THAT in September, 2023, The Five unlawfully removed Tribhovan Lalji Chavda as Director of the two companies to enable them take over and financially molest the companies, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda having denied them a chance to do so under his watch. Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda is just a collateral victim, being a son of Tribhovan Lalji Chavda and an employee of both companies;
11. THAT after unlawfully removing Tribhovan Lalji Chavda as a Director of both companies, we lodged a complaint at the Registrar of Companies against his unlawful removal, which complaint was not replied to by The Five despite being given a right of reply, constraining the Registrar to revoke their illegal decision on 30th August, 2024 (Annexed at pages 18-23 hereof and marked TLC-2 i- iv'' are our correspondences wih the Registrar of Companies);
12. THAT our said complaint before the Registrar of Companies provoked The Five to file various civil suits against us to frustrate, intimidate and bully us into silence. However, we were not, and will not be silenced by their outdated tricks;
13. THAT in addition, The Five filed innumerable civil suits against various banks where the companies'' accounts were domiciled, alleging fraudulent transactions by us in collusion with those banks and with the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK);
14. THAT though the said civil suits relate to the same subject matter, raise the same issues and are against same parties, The Five duplicated them by splitting and suing the Defendants separately in a clear case of forum shopping, with the hope of chancing upon at least one Judgment that would castigate us, the Banks or CBK, so as to bully the Judgment Debtor to concede to their demands. This trick too, failed, with several suits pronounced dead on arrival and struck out vide Preliminary Objections;
15. THAT further, in all the said civil suits, both closed and alive, The Five did not file a single Bank Account Statement to prove the alleged fraudulent transactions despite sentimentally inflating sums as having been stolen and having unlimited access to the said accounts. The said civil suits include, but are not limited to the following:
SUITS ALREADY STRUCK OUT VIDE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E819 of 2023: Virji Meghji Patel -vs- Tribhovan L. Chavda (See pages 24-33 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E920 of 2023: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 34-37 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E921 of 2023: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 38-41 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc Appl Case No. E929 of 2023: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 42-49 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E930 of 2023: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 50-59 hereof)
SUITS STILL ALIVE BEFORE VARIOUS JUDGES IN THE HIGH COURT
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E541 of 2023: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC & Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 60-66 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E548 of 2023: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC & Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 67-82 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E618 of 2023: TRV Developers -vs- Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 83-93 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E619 of 2023: TRV Towers -vs- Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 94-103 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E020 of 2024: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- Bank of Baroda (K) Ltd, Central Bank of Kenya, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda & Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda (See pages 104-137 hereof) NBI HCCOMM Case No. E021 of 2024: TRV Developers Limited -vs- Bank of Baroda (K) Ltd, Central Bank of Kenya, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda & Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda (See pages 138- 177 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E229 of 2024: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda (See pages 178-187 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E256 of 2025: Virji Meghji Patel -vs- Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 188-232 hereof)
(Annexed at pages 24-232 hereof and marked TLC-3i-xiii are extracts of pleadings and/or court orders in the said civil suits);
16. THAT realizing that we were not intimidated, but were spirited to defend ourselves from their allegations, and do so with ease and solid defences, The Five enhanced their threats, bullies and intimidations against us through the abuse of criminal justice system, hence the proceedings before the trial court and this court;
EVENTS LEADING TO THE TRIAL COURT''S PROCEEDINGS
17. THAT just like the civil cases above, the purported complaint therein is an alleged theft at TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited, mischievously lodged by Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera and Vinod Narshi Lathia at two different and distinct investigative authorities, in a clear show of forum shopping so as to manipulate and influence the investigations by one authority to achieve their malicious, illegal and unlawful predetermined outcome to wit intimidating, frustrating and bullying us into silence;
18. THAT The Five first lodged the original complaint against us in December 2023 at the Banking Fraud Investigations Unit (BFIU) - a specialized organ of the National Police Service handling bank fraud cases and domiciled at the Central Bank of Kenya - vide Investigations File Number BFIU IF No. 365 of 2023;
19. THAT in the said complaint, The Five alleged:
i. THAT we operated Accounts Numbers 95860200002200 and 95860200002201 in the name of TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited respectively, both at Bank of Baroda (K) Limited without their knowledge;
ii. THAT we forged some of the account opening forms; and
iii. THAT all the transactions in those accounts, both credits and debits, which they approximate at K.Shs. 112,000,000.00 constitutes stealing by Director, irrespective of the source of the funds and how the funds were utilized;
Each of these allegations is false as already established by BFIU and demonstrated herein;
20. THAT BFIU Detectives began their investigations immediately and obtained necessary court orders vide Milimani Misc. Criminal Application No. E635 of 2024 to enable them obtain relevant documents from various banks (Annexed at pages 233-241 hereof and marked "TLC- 4i-iv" are copies the said Court Orders);
21. THAT the BFIU Detectives conducted their investigations objectively and meticulously with a view to establishing the veracity of the allegations. They therefore, questioned The Five for explanations on various issues that featured in the documents obtained by BFIU. This did not sit well with The Five as the interrogations exposed their motives and unsettled them a great deal;
22. THAT having obtained various documents and established the motive of The Five, the BFIU Detectives, vide a phone call, summoned us to appear before them. With Tribohovan Lalji Chavda having just undergone a medical procedure, we fixed a meeting with them on 15th July, 2024 for interrogations on the complaint;
23. THAT however, in May, 2024, in the pendency of the investigations by, and the aforesaid
meeting with BFIU, The Five, aggrieved by BFIU''s objectivity, lodged a second complaint at the DCI, Parklands Police Station. The purported complaint was similar to, and a mirror copy of the BFIU complaint, touching on the same subject matter, arising from the same set of facts and raising exactly the same issues;
24. THAT we were therefore, hastily summoned by, and appeared before the DCI at Parklands Police Station on 11th and 15th July, 2024 where we were arrested, interrogated by three DCI Officers namely, Douglas Ongicho, Ngatia and Pauline who recorded our statements and thereafter, released us on police cash bail of K.Shs. 200,000.00 and K.Shs. 150,000.00 respectively (Annexed at pages 242-245 hereof & marked "TLC-5 i& ii" are our Cash Bail receipts);
25. THAT on 15th July, 2024, in honour of the initial summons by BFIU, we met Detectives Corporal Daniel Lokeno Partany and Stephen Ochieng'' both of BFIU who informed us that they were investigating an alleged theft at TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited reported by Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera and Vinod Narshi Lathia;
26. THAT to the BFIU Detectives'' shock, we confirmed to them that we were already under investigations by DCI Parklands Police Station over the same complaint, lodged by the same complainants on the same set of facts. The BFIU officers admitted that the foregoing was indeed, irregular and having taken copies of our Cash Bail Receipts, undertook to consolidate the two files so that we do not suffer double jeopardy. Meanwhile, we continued to cooperate with DCI Parklands and appeared there whenever we were so, directed;
27.THAT on 8th August, 2024 at 9:00am, the BFIU Detectives, Daniel Lokeno Partany and Stephen Ochieng visited the DCI Parklands and met with Douglas Ongicho, Ngatia and Pauline on the issue of parallel investigations and they agreed to consolidate the files and thereafter, have the complaint taken over by BFIU, which fact was expressly communicated to us by both offices;
28. THAT the decision to have the BFIU take over the complaint was informed by three main
reasons namely:
i. THAT the complaint at BFIU was the first in time;
ii.
THAT BFIU had already conducted more in-depth investigations and obtained and examined documents from various banks; and
iii.
THAT BFIU was, in any event, the specialized branch of the DCI, mandated and equipped with skilled personnel and appropriate facilities to process complaints of this nature;
29.THAT despite the said agreement, DCI Parklands declined to release its file to the BFIU Detectives at the said meeting, claiming that they needed to draft a forwarding letter for
their records. In the circumstances, DCI Parklands promised to forward their investigation file to BFIU at the earliest;
30. THAT however, immediately after BFIU Detectives left Parklands Police Station, DCI Parklands swiftly recommended charges against us and hastily forwarded their file to the DPP on the same day, 8th August, 2024. Thereafter, BFIU and DCI Parklands engaged in cat and mouse games, with DCI Parklands manifestly frustrating the intended, and agreed upon consolidation;
31. THAT upon submission to the DPP, the said file from DCI Parklands took more than a month without feedback from the DPP, during which period our cash bail was extended for a record nine (9) times without being arraigned before court;
32. THAT on 13th August, 2024, BFIU assured us that the two agencies had addressed the issue and resolved that the two files would be consolidated for take-over by BFIU. The DCI Parklands was therefore, to recall their file from the DPP and submit it to BFIU, which never happened;
33. THAT accordingly, the BFIU Detectives recorded our statements and continued with their investigations, all the while with our cooperation. Despite their assurance, both offices held onto their independent files, subjecting us to parallel investigations over the same
complaint;
34. THAT BFIU continued with its investigations which were far more exhaustive and thorough than DCI Parklands, from which investigations, BFIU obtained documentary evidence, including exculpatory evidence against us and incriminatory evidence against The Five;
35. THAT the said exculpatory and incriminating evidence, which we also submitted to, but
were totally disregarded and concealed by DCI Parklands, include the following:
Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited Transactions Account Ledger for TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 showing ALL the transactions conducted in that account, without a single transaction pointed out to us as being fraudulent (See pages 246-247 hereof):
Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited Transactions Account Ledger for TRV Developers Limited Account No. 95860200002201 showing ALL the transactions conducted in that account, without a single transaction pointed out to us as being fraudulent (See pages 248-249 hereof);
Letters of Offer, duly signed by Virji Meghji Patel confirming payments of 27th May, 2020 vide cheque numbers 137, 138 and 139 for K.Shs. 611,168.00, K.Shs. 499,616.00 and K.Shs. 694,312.00 respectively, payable to N. K. Mugo & Company Advocates for stamp duty on behalf of Prasand Investments Limited, which is a company owned by Virji Meghji Patel in respect of office units purchased by him being 5E, 5F and 5G at TRV Centre Building. These cheques were issued from TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 whose
existence, Virji Meghji Patel now claims not to have known, despite receiving these funds from that account (See pages 250-261 hereof);
CR-12 for Prasand Investments Limited showing that Virji Meghji Patel is a Director thereof (See page 262 hereof);
Cheque payments of 3rd February, 2020, 3rd March, 2020, 7th July, 2020 and 24th July, 2020 vide cheque numbers 33, 49, 109 and 122 for K.Shs. 2,392,241.00, K.Shs. 2,432,694.00, K.Shs. 2,007,894.00 and K.Shs. 1,000,000.00 respectively, all paid to Kedar Builders Limited which is a company owned by Virji Meghji Patel. These payments were part settlement of his fees, having been contracted by TRV Developers Limited to develop TRV Park West Office Suites. These cheques were all paid from TRV Developers Limited Account No. 95860200002201 whose existence, Virji Meghji Patel now claims not to have known, despite receiving these funds from that account (See pages 263-274 hereof);
CR-12 for Kedar Builders Limited showing that Virji Meghji Patel is a Director thereof (See page 275 hereof);
Bank Statement dated 3rd August, 2020 showing two RTGS remittances of 14th July, 2020 for K.Shs. 750,000.00 each paid by Purshottam Premji Vera into TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200, whose existence, Purshottam Premji Vera now claims not to have known, despite paying these sums into that very account through RTGS (See page 276 hereof):
Bank Statement dated 3rd August, 2020 showing one cash payment on 14th July, 2020 for K.Shs. 500,000.00 and two Cheque payments vide cheque numbers 226 and 227 respectively, on 25th July, 2020 for K.Shs. 500,000.00 each, all paid by Purshottam Premji Vera into TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 whose existence Purshottam Premji Vera now claims not to have known despite depositing these sums into that account (See page 277 hereof);
Cheque image for cheque number 462 and Deposit slip thereof both dated 21st November, 2022 for K.Shs. 215,250.00 paid to Prasand Investments Limited which is a company owned by Virji Meghji Patel being a refund of funds received from his tenant for office unit M1 under him. This cheque was issued from TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 whose existence, Virji Meghji Patel now claims not to have known, despite receiving these funds from that very account (See pages 278-279 hereof);
Audited Annual Financial Statements of TRV Towers Limited for the year ended 30th June, 2020, duly signed and approved by both Directors namely, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda and Virji Meghji Patel on 24th February, 2021. The said Financial Statement
[...truncated]
The DPP through Ms Virginia Kariuki prosecution counsel wrote to the Deputy Registrar on 24 th October 2024 seeking a revision against a decision made by Honorable Ben Mark Ekuhbi on 24 th of October 2024.
It is important to reproduce the full contents of the letter so as to contextualize this application.
The letter reads:
The Deputy Registrar,
High Court of Kenya,
Criminal Division.
NAIROBI.
KENYA
Date: 24TH OCTOBER, 2024.
RE: APPLICATION FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 362 AND 364 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, CAP.75, LAWS OF KENYA
MILIMANI CHIEF MAGISTRATE''S COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. E988 of 2024 REVISION ON RULING AND ORDERS ISSUED BY HON. BEN MARK (SPM) ON 24/10/2024 UNDER CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY.
REPUBLIC-VERSUS - JEYESH CHAVDA AND TRIBHOVAN CHAVDA
We refer to the above matter.
We write to certify that this application is extremely urgent and should be placed before the learned head of the High Court''s Criminal Division as the order and ruling it seeks to have revised has far reaching and adverse ramifications on the pending Criminal Case No. E 988 of 2024 at Milimani chief Magistrate''s Court, as the trial Court on 24/10/2024 declined the prosecution''s application seeking leave to withdraw the charges under section 87(a) of the CPC and directed the intended accused persons/ Respondents to take plea on the 25/10/24 at 9.00 am, despite compelling grounds as to why the decision to charge needed to be reviewed, being laid before the
Court.
Prayers in the interim
The Court refused to grant leave to withdraw the charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC and directed the intended accused persons to take plea on 25/10/24, Hence the urgency.
We pray for stay of any further proceeding and ruling at the trial Court pending the hearing and final determination of this revision.
BACKGROUND
15. The Respondents, Jeyesh Chavda and Tribhovan Chavda were charged before the Chief
Magistrate''s Court at MILIMANI with four counts to wit; -
a) Stealing by director contrary to section 282 of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on diverse dates between 18th October, 2019 and 31st July, 2023 the respondents being directors of TRV Towers Limited, stole kshs. 112,000,000/- the property of TRV Towers limited, that came into their possession by virtue of their
employment.
b) Conspiracy to defraud contrary to section 317 of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on diverse dates between 16th October, 2019 and 31st July, 2023
the respondents with others not before court, conspired to defraud TRV Towers Limited
kshs. 112,000,000/-.
c) Making a false document contrary to section 357 (a) of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on 16th October, 2019, the Respondent with intent to defraud and without lawful authority jointly made Bank of Boroda Account opening document, purporting it to be genuine.
d) Uttering a false document contrary to section 353 of the Penal Code.
The particulars were that on diverse dates between 16th October, 2019, the Respondent with intent to defraud, knowingly uttered a bank account opening document purporting it to have been signed by TRV Towers Limited directors.
16. THAT on the 25th of September 2024 the Director of Public Prosecution approved charges
against the two respondents after evaluating evidence submitted DCI Parklands.
17. THAT subsequently, the plea was registered that very morning and in fact, two pleas were registered that day and assigned Court file numbers E988/2024 and the other E989/2024, each being an independent file on its own.
18. THAT due to procedural technicalities on the part of judiciary case registration system, only Court file E989/2024 was availed in Court for plea taking in the morning and it was not until 3.00pm when Court file E 988/2024 was availed for plea taking.
19. THAT at the time plea was registered there was every intention by the Applicant for the respondents to take plea, however and unforeseeable to the Applicant, prior to 3 pm, it was brought to the DPP''s attention, of the existence of another file involving the same subject matter, over the same accused persons and filed by the same complainant, which was being investigated by Banking Fraud Unit and which had not been submitted to him.
2.THAT procedurally, this was not proper, as a matter cannot be subjected to two parallel investigations by different offices of the same institution, hereby being Parklands DCI and Banking Fraud Unit, both being under National Police Service.
THAT the evidence contained in the Banking Fraud file is material and needed to be taken into consideration before any decision to charge can be conclusively made by the DPP.
THAT there was a real and imminent threat of abuse of the legal process, if the Applicant application was not allowed, as afore mentioned, that it is neither procedural nor proper, for a matter to be subjected to parallel investigations on a complaint made by the same party, over the same subject matter and against similar parties, which could arrive at adverse conclusions.
THAT until the DPP evaluates the banking fraud file, which could contain evidence that is either inculpatory or exculpatory to the intended accused persons/ Respondents, a decision to charge cannot be said to have been made.
24.THAT this called for the immediate action by the Applicant, which was to seek the charges to be withdrawn before the respondents could take plea, as it was important for the DPP to evaluate evidence contained in both files before a conclusive decision could be made on whether to charge
or not.
25. THAT on the 26th of September 2024, the Applicant moved the Court with an oral application to
seek leave to withdraw the matter under section 87 (a) of the CPC.
THAT on 24th October, 2024 the Court delivered it ruling declining to grant the Applicant leave to withdraw the charges, on the ground that the Magistrate perused the correspondences from Banking Fraud Unit, which were submitted by Counsel watching brief for the complainant, and that he had formed the opinion that the Applicant''s application was not made in good faith.
27. THAT the Court errored and usurped itself powers constitutionally conferred to the Applicant, as declining to grant leave inevitably resulted in making the decision to charge in place of the Applicant, especially since the Applicant had submitted merited grounds as to why the decision to charge was not conclusive and needed to be reviewed.
28.THAT the material developments that had occurred before plea was taken could not have been preempted by the Applicant and thus the Applicant cannot be said to have made the application
in bad faith.
29. THAT the Applicant application was in fact made in order to prevent abuse of the legal process
and administer justice.
30. THAT the Court errored in failing to appreciate the role and mandate of the Applicant in the
institution of criminal proceedings as envisioned in Article 157 (6) (a). THAT the Court errored in inferring that the decision to charge was conclusively made, from perusing documents from an investigating body, submitted by Counsel watching brief.
THAT the Court errored in allowing the role of the Counsel watching brief to be held in competition with that of the Applicant, a role which should be jealously guarded.
THAT the Court errored in declining to grant leave to withdraw the charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC, as it allows abuse of the legal process.
Our contention
THAT on the 26th of September 2024, the Applicant moved the Court with an application to seek leave to withdraw the matter under section 87 (a) of the CPC on the grounds that:
a. the decision to withdraw the matter was reached guided by the decision to charge guidelines, provisions of the ODPP Act, 2013 and the National Prosecution Policy, which mandate the DPP to be objective, fair and independent in discharging his duty, a duty which includes continually reviewing cases to ensure interests of justice are protected at every stage of the prosecution process.
b. upon undertaking an appropriate review and the DPP forms an opinion that the matter
ought not be instituted, if already instituted, the same to be halted forthwith.
c. the ODPP being an independent and well-established constitutional office, it is the only
office solely mandated to prosecute in criminal proceedings through the DPP.
d. by preventing abuse of the legal process, the DPP is acting in exercise of the powers
conferred to him by the Constitution.
There was a real and imminent threat of abuse of the legal process, if the Applicant''s application was not allowed, as it was neither procedural nor proper, for a matter to be subjected to parallel investigations on a complaint made by the same party, over the same subject matter and against similar parties, yet the same was not to brought to the knowledge of the DPP at the time of making the decision to charge.
Your Lordship, we therefore humbly request this Honorable Court to call for and examine the records in Milimani Chief Magistrate''s Court Criminal Case E988 of 2024 pursuant to
Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code and:
a) Determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings leading to the ruling and order
by the Court denying the prosecution leave to withdraw charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC, despite sufficient grounds having been laid by the prosecution as to why the decision to charge
needs to be reviewed.
Determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings leading to the ruling and order
issued on 24/10/2024 without giving cogent reasons and whether there is any provision of law that granted the Court authority to take over and exercise the prosecutorial mandate to make the decision to charge and if so, its regularity and/or correctness considering the provisions of Article
157 (6) (a) as read with Article 157 (6) (c) of the Constitution, in view of the peculiar circumstances
of this case.
c) Examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the entire proceedings in this case and the manner the Court conducted the proceedings and determine whether the Court held in competition, the role of the Prosecution, with that of the Counsel watching brief for the complainant.
d) Whether the said the grounds the Court to relied on in order to decline to grant leave to withdraw the charges, amounted to what the Court termed as the Applicant not acting in good faith,
despite the peculiar circumstances surrounding this case including the imminent threat of abuse of the legal process.
We urged this Honorable Court to set aside the orders denying the prosecution leave to withdraw charges under section 87 (a) of the CPC and set aside the orders directing the intended accused persons/Respondents to take plea on 25/10/24.
We also request this Court to issue in the interim stay orders, staying the Court from proceeding and/or making any further directions pending the hearing and final determination of this revision and any other orders that commends itself in the circumstances.
Yours faithfully,
VIRGINIA KARIUKI
PROSECUTION COUNSEL
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FOR: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
The respondents filed an affidavit in support of the DPP’s application sworn on 23 rd May 2025 by both respondents. In it the respondents have given a detailed and vivid account of matters touching on investigations and how the decision to charge was arrived at by the DPP.
It is imperative that this court lays bear the case by the respondents in support of the DPP thus the need to reproduce in extenso the affidavit by the respondents:-
2. THAT we have read the DPP''s Application for Revision dated 24th October, 2024 and where necessary, had the contents thereof explained to us by our Advocates on record and we swear this Affidavit in support of the said Application for Revision of Hon. Ben Mark Ekhubi (SPM)''s Ruling of 24th October, 2024 in Milimani CMCR Case No. E988 of 2024;
INTRODUCTION
3. THAT from the onset, we confirm that the accusations against us comprise no more than baseless allegations and trumped up charges founded on falsehoods and misrepresentations disguised as genuine complaints, a fact which we clearly demonstrated to the trial court;
4. THAT we therefore, acknowledge with gratitude and associate ourselves fully with the DPP''s averments in its Certificate of Urgency and Application for Revision herein, both dated 24th October, 2024;
5. THAT in addition, and for the benefit of this Court, we shall reiterate herein the averments in our Affidavit of 8th October, 2024 filed before the trial court particularly because in its ruling, the trial court failed to analyse the facts and issues raised therein at all;
6. THAT we therefore, urge this honourable court to patiently walk with us through this
Affidavit and ultimately lift the corporate veil behind which the individuals, disguising themselves as TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited are hiding to advance this malicious agenda. For the record, neither of these companies lost a coin under our watch from Bank of Baroda or any other bank, for the period alleged and/or at all;
7. THAT contrary to the allegations that the complainants herein are TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited, the real persons behind this scheme are five individuals namely, Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera, Vinod Narshi Lathia, Bhimji J. Bhudia and Patrick Sagwa Kisia. The first three are currently illegally posing as Directors, and unlawfully excluding Tribhovan Lalji Chavda from the Board of Directors of the companies while Bhimji J. Bhudia and Patrick Sagwa Kisia are purported employees thereof;
EVENTS PRECEDING THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS HEREIN
8. THAT since incorporation, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda was, and still is a Director and Shareholder of TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited. He is the majority shareholder of TRV Developers Limited, owning 51% of the total paid up shares thereof and also a shareholder of TRV Towers Limited owning 30% of the shares thereof (Annexed at pages 16 & 17 hereof and marked TLC-1 i & ii are CR-12 for the companies showing shareholding);
9. THAT Tribhovan Lalji Chavda was the Managing Director of the two companies. He ethically and professionally steered the companies without any financial scandal, real or percieved, for a record 16 years, until September 2023 when his Co-Directors, Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera and Vinod Narshi Lathia together with Bhimji J. Bhudia and Patrick Sagwa Kisia (hereinafter collectively referred to as ''The Five'') rocked the ship for their selfish, malicious gains;
10. THAT in September, 2023, The Five unlawfully removed Tribhovan Lalji Chavda as Director of the two companies to enable them take over and financially molest the companies, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda having denied them a chance to do so under his watch. Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda is just a collateral victim, being a son of Tribhovan Lalji Chavda and an employee of both companies;
11. THAT after unlawfully removing Tribhovan Lalji Chavda as a Director of both companies, we lodged a complaint at the Registrar of Companies against his unlawful removal, which complaint was not replied to by The Five despite being given a right of reply, constraining the Registrar to revoke their illegal decision on 30th August, 2024 (Annexed at pages 18-23 hereof and marked TLC-2 i- iv'' are our correspondences wih the Registrar of Companies);
12. THAT our said complaint before the Registrar of Companies provoked The Five to file various civil suits against us to frustrate, intimidate and bully us into silence. However, we were not, and will not be silenced by their outdated tricks;
13. THAT in addition, The Five filed innumerable civil suits against various banks where the companies'' accounts were domiciled, alleging fraudulent transactions by us in collusion with those banks and with the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK);
14. THAT though the said civil suits relate to the same subject matter, raise the same issues and are against same parties, The Five duplicated them by splitting and suing the Defendants separately in a clear case of forum shopping, with the hope of chancing upon at least one Judgment that would castigate us, the Banks or CBK, so as to bully the Judgment Debtor to concede to their demands. This trick too, failed, with several suits pronounced dead on arrival and struck out vide Preliminary Objections;
15. THAT further, in all the said civil suits, both closed and alive, The Five did not file a single Bank Account Statement to prove the alleged fraudulent transactions despite sentimentally inflating sums as having been stolen and having unlimited access to the said accounts. The said civil suits include, but are not limited to the following:
SUITS ALREADY STRUCK OUT VIDE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E819 of 2023: Virji Meghji Patel -vs- Tribhovan L. Chavda (See pages 24-33 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E920 of 2023: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 34-37 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E921 of 2023: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 38-41 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc Appl Case No. E929 of 2023: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 42-49 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Misc App Case No. E930 of 2023: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC (See pages 50-59 hereof)
SUITS STILL ALIVE BEFORE VARIOUS JUDGES IN THE HIGH COURT
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E541 of 2023: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC & Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 60-66 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E548 of 2023: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- NCBA Bank PLC & Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 67-82 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E618 of 2023: TRV Developers -vs- Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 83-93 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E619 of 2023: TRV Towers -vs- Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 94-103 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E020 of 2024: TRV Towers Ltd -vs- Bank of Baroda (K) Ltd, Central Bank of Kenya, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda & Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda (See pages 104-137 hereof) NBI HCCOMM Case No. E021 of 2024: TRV Developers Limited -vs- Bank of Baroda (K) Ltd, Central Bank of Kenya, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda & Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda (See pages 138- 177 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E229 of 2024: TRV Developers Ltd -vs- Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda (See pages 178-187 hereof)
NBI HCCOMM Case No. E256 of 2025: Virji Meghji Patel -vs- Tribhovan Lalji Chavda (See pages 188-232 hereof)
(Annexed at pages 24-232 hereof and marked TLC-3i-xiii are extracts of pleadings and/or court orders in the said civil suits);
16. THAT realizing that we were not intimidated, but were spirited to defend ourselves from their allegations, and do so with ease and solid defences, The Five enhanced their threats, bullies and intimidations against us through the abuse of criminal justice system, hence the proceedings before the trial court and this court;
EVENTS LEADING TO THE TRIAL COURT''S PROCEEDINGS
17. THAT just like the civil cases above, the purported complaint therein is an alleged theft at TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited, mischievously lodged by Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera and Vinod Narshi Lathia at two different and distinct investigative authorities, in a clear show of forum shopping so as to manipulate and influence the investigations by one authority to achieve their malicious, illegal and unlawful predetermined outcome to wit intimidating, frustrating and bullying us into silence;
18. THAT The Five first lodged the original complaint against us in December 2023 at the Banking Fraud Investigations Unit (BFIU) - a specialized organ of the National Police Service handling bank fraud cases and domiciled at the Central Bank of Kenya - vide Investigations File Number BFIU IF No. 365 of 2023;
19. THAT in the said complaint, The Five alleged:
i. THAT we operated Accounts Numbers 95860200002200 and 95860200002201 in the name of TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited respectively, both at Bank of Baroda (K) Limited without their knowledge;
ii. THAT we forged some of the account opening forms; and
iii. THAT all the transactions in those accounts, both credits and debits, which they approximate at K.Shs. 112,000,000.00 constitutes stealing by Director, irrespective of the source of the funds and how the funds were utilized;
Each of these allegations is false as already established by BFIU and demonstrated herein;
20. THAT BFIU Detectives began their investigations immediately and obtained necessary court orders vide Milimani Misc. Criminal Application No. E635 of 2024 to enable them obtain relevant documents from various banks (Annexed at pages 233-241 hereof and marked "TLC- 4i-iv" are copies the said Court Orders);
21. THAT the BFIU Detectives conducted their investigations objectively and meticulously with a view to establishing the veracity of the allegations. They therefore, questioned The Five for explanations on various issues that featured in the documents obtained by BFIU. This did not sit well with The Five as the interrogations exposed their motives and unsettled them a great deal;
22. THAT having obtained various documents and established the motive of The Five, the BFIU Detectives, vide a phone call, summoned us to appear before them. With Tribohovan Lalji Chavda having just undergone a medical procedure, we fixed a meeting with them on 15th July, 2024 for interrogations on the complaint;
23. THAT however, in May, 2024, in the pendency of the investigations by, and the aforesaid
meeting with BFIU, The Five, aggrieved by BFIU''s objectivity, lodged a second complaint at the DCI, Parklands Police Station. The purported complaint was similar to, and a mirror copy of the BFIU complaint, touching on the same subject matter, arising from the same set of facts and raising exactly the same issues;
24. THAT we were therefore, hastily summoned by, and appeared before the DCI at Parklands Police Station on 11th and 15th July, 2024 where we were arrested, interrogated by three DCI Officers namely, Douglas Ongicho, Ngatia and Pauline who recorded our statements and thereafter, released us on police cash bail of K.Shs. 200,000.00 and K.Shs. 150,000.00 respectively (Annexed at pages 242-245 hereof & marked "TLC-5 i& ii" are our Cash Bail receipts);
25. THAT on 15th July, 2024, in honour of the initial summons by BFIU, we met Detectives Corporal Daniel Lokeno Partany and Stephen Ochieng'' both of BFIU who informed us that they were investigating an alleged theft at TRV Towers Limited and TRV Developers Limited reported by Virji Meghji Patel, Purshottam Premji Vera and Vinod Narshi Lathia;
26. THAT to the BFIU Detectives'' shock, we confirmed to them that we were already under investigations by DCI Parklands Police Station over the same complaint, lodged by the same complainants on the same set of facts. The BFIU officers admitted that the foregoing was indeed, irregular and having taken copies of our Cash Bail Receipts, undertook to consolidate the two files so that we do not suffer double jeopardy. Meanwhile, we continued to cooperate with DCI Parklands and appeared there whenever we were so, directed;
27.THAT on 8th August, 2024 at 9:00am, the BFIU Detectives, Daniel Lokeno Partany and Stephen Ochieng visited the DCI Parklands and met with Douglas Ongicho, Ngatia and Pauline on the issue of parallel investigations and they agreed to consolidate the files and thereafter, have the complaint taken over by BFIU, which fact was expressly communicated to us by both offices;
28. THAT the decision to have the BFIU take over the complaint was informed by three main
reasons namely:
i. THAT the complaint at BFIU was the first in time;
ii.
THAT BFIU had already conducted more in-depth investigations and obtained and examined documents from various banks; and
iii.
THAT BFIU was, in any event, the specialized branch of the DCI, mandated and equipped with skilled personnel and appropriate facilities to process complaints of this nature;
29.THAT despite the said agreement, DCI Parklands declined to release its file to the BFIU Detectives at the said meeting, claiming that they needed to draft a forwarding letter for
their records. In the circumstances, DCI Parklands promised to forward their investigation file to BFIU at the earliest;
30. THAT however, immediately after BFIU Detectives left Parklands Police Station, DCI Parklands swiftly recommended charges against us and hastily forwarded their file to the DPP on the same day, 8th August, 2024. Thereafter, BFIU and DCI Parklands engaged in cat and mouse games, with DCI Parklands manifestly frustrating the intended, and agreed upon consolidation;
31. THAT upon submission to the DPP, the said file from DCI Parklands took more than a month without feedback from the DPP, during which period our cash bail was extended for a record nine (9) times without being arraigned before court;
32. THAT on 13th August, 2024, BFIU assured us that the two agencies had addressed the issue and resolved that the two files would be consolidated for take-over by BFIU. The DCI Parklands was therefore, to recall their file from the DPP and submit it to BFIU, which never happened;
33. THAT accordingly, the BFIU Detectives recorded our statements and continued with their investigations, all the while with our cooperation. Despite their assurance, both offices held onto their independent files, subjecting us to parallel investigations over the same
complaint;
34. THAT BFIU continued with its investigations which were far more exhaustive and thorough than DCI Parklands, from which investigations, BFIU obtained documentary evidence, including exculpatory evidence against us and incriminatory evidence against The Five;
35. THAT the said exculpatory and incriminating evidence, which we also submitted to, but
were totally disregarded and concealed by DCI Parklands, include the following:
Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited Transactions Account Ledger for TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 showing ALL the transactions conducted in that account, without a single transaction pointed out to us as being fraudulent (See pages 246-247 hereof):
Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited Transactions Account Ledger for TRV Developers Limited Account No. 95860200002201 showing ALL the transactions conducted in that account, without a single transaction pointed out to us as being fraudulent (See pages 248-249 hereof);
Letters of Offer, duly signed by Virji Meghji Patel confirming payments of 27th May, 2020 vide cheque numbers 137, 138 and 139 for K.Shs. 611,168.00, K.Shs. 499,616.00 and K.Shs. 694,312.00 respectively, payable to N. K. Mugo & Company Advocates for stamp duty on behalf of Prasand Investments Limited, which is a company owned by Virji Meghji Patel in respect of office units purchased by him being 5E, 5F and 5G at TRV Centre Building. These cheques were issued from TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 whose
existence, Virji Meghji Patel now claims not to have known, despite receiving these funds from that account (See pages 250-261 hereof);
CR-12 for Prasand Investments Limited showing that Virji Meghji Patel is a Director thereof (See page 262 hereof);
Cheque payments of 3rd February, 2020, 3rd March, 2020, 7th July, 2020 and 24th July, 2020 vide cheque numbers 33, 49, 109 and 122 for K.Shs. 2,392,241.00, K.Shs. 2,432,694.00, K.Shs. 2,007,894.00 and K.Shs. 1,000,000.00 respectively, all paid to Kedar Builders Limited which is a company owned by Virji Meghji Patel. These payments were part settlement of his fees, having been contracted by TRV Developers Limited to develop TRV Park West Office Suites. These cheques were all paid from TRV Developers Limited Account No. 95860200002201 whose existence, Virji Meghji Patel now claims not to have known, despite receiving these funds from that account (See pages 263-274 hereof);
CR-12 for Kedar Builders Limited showing that Virji Meghji Patel is a Director thereof (See page 275 hereof);
Bank Statement dated 3rd August, 2020 showing two RTGS remittances of 14th July, 2020 for K.Shs. 750,000.00 each paid by Purshottam Premji Vera into TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200, whose existence, Purshottam Premji Vera now claims not to have known, despite paying these sums into that very account through RTGS (See page 276 hereof):
Bank Statement dated 3rd August, 2020 showing one cash payment on 14th July, 2020 for K.Shs. 500,000.00 and two Cheque payments vide cheque numbers 226 and 227 respectively, on 25th July, 2020 for K.Shs. 500,000.00 each, all paid by Purshottam Premji Vera into TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 whose existence Purshottam Premji Vera now claims not to have known despite depositing these sums into that account (See page 277 hereof);
Cheque image for cheque number 462 and Deposit slip thereof both dated 21st November, 2022 for K.Shs. 215,250.00 paid to Prasand Investments Limited which is a company owned by Virji Meghji Patel being a refund of funds received from his tenant for office unit M1 under him. This cheque was issued from TRV Towers Limited Account No. 95860200002200 whose existence, Virji Meghji Patel now claims not to have known, despite receiving these funds from that very account (See pages 278-279 hereof);
Audited Annual Financial Statements of TRV Towers Limited for the year ended 30th June, 2020, duly signed and approved by both Directors namely, Tribhovan Lalji Chavda and Virji Meghji Patel on 24th February, 2021. The said Financial Statement
[...truncated]