(4 minutes read)
In this suit, the plaintiffs Gichuki Waigwa, Lucy Nzola and Godfrey Okutoyi sought several declarations among them an order requiring M-Pesa Holding Company Limited to disclose its Annual Reports and Accounts from the date of its incorporation on September 11, 2006, to date. They also sought an order lifting the corporate veil on Safaricom.
In this suit, the plaintiffs Gichuki Waigwa, Lucy Nzola and Godfrey Okutoyi sought several declarations among them an order requiring M-Pesa Holding Company Limited to disclose its Annual Reports and Accounts from the date of its incorporation on September 11, 2006, to date. They also sought an order lifting the corporate veil on Safaricom. Safaricom has won the case against three plaintiffs, who filed the case against the telecom company for fraudulent activities and to lift the corporate veil. www.trendsnafrica.com reported earlier that the court decision would come today.
The brief backdrop of the case is that High Court Judge Nixon Sifuna had on October 4 this year ordered the plaintiffs in the suit to file the necessary documents required to support their suit. The Judge had given them 21 days to comply with failure to which their suit would become automatically dismissed. The suit was against Safaricom, Vodafone Group Plc, M-Pesa Holding company, and Central Bank of Kenya among others.
In this suit, the plaintiffs Gichuki Waigwa, Lucy Nzola and Godfrey Okutoyi sought several declarations among them an order requiring M-Pesa Holding Company Limited to disclose its Annual Reports and Accounts from the date of its incorporation on September 11, 2006, to date. They also sought an order lifting the corporate veil on Safaricom.
When the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, Counsel Wilfred Nderitu representing the plaintiffs admitted that he had not complied with the court’s directions. Nderitu requested not more than 14 days to file and serve a list of documents, a list of witnesses, and witness statements except for expert witnesses. The judge did not heed his appeal as the defendant’s advocate argued that the plaintiff should have been more diligent in prosecuting the suit on account of it being a public interest matter. He further argued that going by the Judges’ orders issued on October 4, there is currently no suit to be argued out. Justice Sifuna in a brief ruling said a court order is not an essay to be corrected. The judge said that it was due to the plaintiff’s inactivity and consistent noncompliance with the said order, that they dismissed their suit.
The judge, however, said that the Plaintiffs are free to file a fresh suit if they wish and instructed them to do so with diligence. The plaintiffs filed the case in court in March this year. They have demanded Sh305 billion in damages from the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation, material non-disclosure of facts, illegal and unlawful investment of M-Pesa account holders’ funds, predatory lending practices, and charging of exorbitant interest rates.
Read Also:
https://trendsnafrica.com/safaricom-sued-to-disclose-financial-holdings-by-m-pesa-account-holders/
https://trendsnafrica.com/safaricom-to-widen-its-base-in-ethiopia/
They had also asked the court to find that there has at no time been any legal between the Vodafone Group Plc and the M-Pesa Account holders since the inception of the M-Pesa Service by which the Vodafone Group Plc could be said to have been lawfully holding funds belonging to M-Pesa Accountholders. They wanted the court to find that M-Pesa Account holders’ funds were siphoned off to the Vodafone Group Plc, and mixed with funds belonging to the Vodafone Group Plc, in circumstances amounting to illicit financial flows and unjust enrichment.
