Having risen up the ladder to build a chain of empire with vast interests in agriculture, real estate and manufacturing, Mohan Galot is no doubt an established businessman always stalked by controversies.
Despite featuring in the infamous Panama Papers, Galot has been, and is still facing a litany of criminal charges ranging from forgery, abuse of workers’ rights and the latest Sh2.5billion tax evasion law suit.
In 2017, the High Court overturned a decision to free Galot and directed that he be prosecuted in three criminal cases over alleged fraud.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, aggrieved by the sudden turn of events by a magistrate to let him off the hook, successfully appealed the decision to withdraw the charges.
Opposing the withdrawal of the cases against Galot, senior assistant director of prosecutions Eddie Kadebe said it’s only the DPP who had the sole powers to institute and terminate criminal proceedings.
He said the Chief Magistrate had withdrawn the cases against him yet the businessman was one of the disputing parties in a directorship wrangle that is still alive in the courts.
Kadebe argued that the magistrate failed to take into account that other charges brought against the controversial businessman and his wife Santosh Galot did not necessarily arise from their position as directors of the companies but rather in respect of their conduct in preparing forged documents without authority.
The couple is embroiled in a dispute with his nephews Pravin Galot and Rajesh Galot regarding the shareholding and directorship of the family’s multi-billion shilling worth group of companies.
At the centre of a long drawn-out legal battle is the control of Galot Industries, Manchester Outfitters, King Woolen Mills, Mohan Meakin, London Distillers Kenya Ltd and M.G Park.
The companies deal in real estate, shares, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage distillery, bottling and sale, as well as fabric and cloth making.
Galot and his wife are alleged to have forged the signatures of public officers in the Ministry of Land and registrar of companies to transfer three prime properties to M.G Park Ltd without the consent of the other directors of Galot Industries including Pravin and Rajesh.
The DPP maintained that the person who went to seek the withdrawal of the charges had no authority to do so, arguing the State was the actual complainant and desirous to continue prosecuting the case to its logical conclusion.
However, lawyer Kiraithe Wandugi representing the couple, disagreed saying the DPP had failed to demonstrate how the orders were improper, illegal or irregular.
Wandugi said his clients had suffered great prejudice during the pendency of the cases and stated that it was against public interest and prejudicial to the management of the companies for the DPP to take up such cases.
But Justice Luka Kimaru, in his ruling, said that the issue under determination was whether the magistrate properly exercised his mandate when he withdrew the charges.
“It is common ground that it is the directorships of the companies that are the subject of the three criminal cases in dispute. The difference between the disputing parties is such that litigation has been long drawn and acrimonious,” said justice Kimaru.
The judge noted that the chief magistrate had made findings as to who the complainant was in the three cases which was contrary to the position it had taken.
“A casual perusal of the charge sheet in the three cases shows that some of the complaints made against Mr Mohan and Ms Santosh related to transfer of properties after the two had purported to be directors of the companies in question,” said the judge.
The judge also observed that the magistrate erred when he upheld submissions advanced by parties who had not lodged any complaint with the police regarding alleged criminal activities perpetrated in respect of the properties owned by the companies.
He said the request for revision was pegged on the fact that the then magistrate Daniel Ogembo (now a judge) erred in withdrawing the cases and failed to appreciate the role of the DPP in matters relating to prosecutions.
On December 4, 2016, Justice Mumbi Ngugi dismissed the couple’s petition to stop the criminal trial, saying she was not persuaded that there was ulterior motive in their prosecution, or that the DPP had abused his constitutional mandate.
They had moved to court to challenge the validity of the criminal charges against them, arguing they were not valid, bona fide or lawful and were a violation of their constitutional rights.
“Apprehension with regard to something that is yet to happen, is not the basis for stopping a prosecution unless it can be shown that the charges are arbitrary or unreasonable,” said the judge.
She, however, said the couple would be entitled to a fair hearing before the trial court and dismissed allegations that their right would be violated.
The tycoon had complained to the judge that despite the pendency of the civil suits, he was arrested and arraigned before the chief magistrate’s court to answer nine counts relating to his wife’s status as a director of Galot Industries.