- Justice Alfred Mabeya set the date after both Desire Muhinyuza (Rwandese) and Koome Kirimi (Kenyan) took the stand to testify on the ownership and operations of Stay Online Limited (SOL).
- Koome Kirimi claims to be the sole owner of SOL, the company the Rwandese investor is seeking to regain control.
Image: DOUGLAS OKIDDY
The High Court will on Wednesday next week determine a dispute over the ownership of a fintech firm pitting a Rwandese investor against a Kenyan businessman.
Justice Alfred Mabeya set the date after both Desire Muhinyuza (Rwandese) and Koome Kirimi (Kenyan) took the stand to testify on the ownership and operations of Stay Online Limited (SOL).
The case has been ongoing since Monday, December 18.
Koome Kirimi claims to be the sole owner of SOL, the company the Rwandese investor is seeking to regain control.
Desire says Koome was chosen as SOL’s agent in Kenya due to the immigration hassles that foreigners face in compliance with the Banking Acts in Kenya.
He has since told the court that failure by Koome to register him as the beneficial owner of the company was in bad faith because he knew that he did not have a regular immigration status at the time of registering SOL.
Desire says Koome holds the position of director/shareholder of SOL at his behest and not on his own accord.
Desire wants the court to issue an order directing the Registrar of Companies to remove Koome as a signatory to the company’s bank accounts at the United Bank of Africa (UBA).
Also sought is a mandatory order directing Koome to refund the 100,000 dollars he allegedly obtained and a permanent order retraining Koome from conducting any transaction on Stay Online limited bank accounts at UBA.
Koome has maintained that the company is his. He produced a CR12, a document allegedly from the Registrar of Companies in Kenya showing he is a director of SOL.
He had earlier told the court that one of his signatures appeared on the document. He has three signatures. Among them is a short and long-form signature.
He called a private forensic document examiner –Daniel Kutu- as a witness in the case who examined one of his signatures.
In discrediting the witness, Advocate Danstan Omari representing Desire sought to know from Kutu whether he was aware Koome had more than one signature. Kutu said he was only aware of one.
He told the court he received a set of documents and samples from Koome’s advocates to examine. Koome’s signature was one of the samples.
Asked whether he exposed them to a scientific machine, Kutu said he used a stereo microscope whose work is to magnify the document. But it later came out that the machine he was using for magnifications was a specimen of insects.
“Do you have the specifications of that gadget?” Omari asked.
“It’s not here,” Kutu said.
Before venturing into private practice, Kutu used to work for the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
He was however not able to produce his license. He did not carry it with him.
An official from the registrar of companies also told the court that in August this year, they received a complaint from Desire regarding SOL.
He said even though it's clear there’s a tussle on ultimate control of Stay Online, they couldn't make a finding as the matter was already before court.