Former Britam managers’ accounts to remain frozen

The High Court has dismissed an application in which Acorn Group was seeking to have its frozen accounts opened. Justice David Onyancha yesterday dismissed Acorn’s claims that he had no authority to grant temporary orders that froze accounts with over Sh3.9 billion.

The accounts form the dispute between Britam and its  four former employees Edwin Dande, Elizabeth Nkukuu, Shiv Arora and Patricia Wanjama, who are also Acorn founders.

In agreement with Britam’s argument, Justice Onyancha ruled that the court had the authority to issue orders maintaining a status quo of a matter until the dispute between the contesting parties is resolved.

Britam through lawyer Fred Ngatia told the court that the temporary orders freezing the accounts were justified, adding that if the defendants were allowed to continue operating the accounts, the company would suffer irreparable damage.

Britam is seeking to recover Sh3.94 billion from former executives who quit its asset management unit, BAAM, in August sparking a heated legal battle between the firm and Acorn.

Ngatia was responding to arguments earlier filed by Acorn that the court lift orders. The orders are also binding to the other four separate cases before the same judge.

However, Acorn, which is 25 per cent owned by Britam, informed the court that it lacked authority to extend orders freezing its bank accounts.

“The denial of an injunction can cause such a damage that cannot be repaired. The purpose of the injunction is to preserve the suit property until the case is determined,” Ngatia argued.

Extend orders

Justice Onyancha noted that all parties in the case had attended the court on November 12 and the same orders were extended with the consent of Britam’s and Acorn’s lawyers. The orders were to lapsed yesterday.

“The issue then is is if the court has powers to extend the orders,” he said.

He said that though there are provisions that bar the court from extending temporary orders beyond 28 days, the same could not bar it from giving further orders to the effect that the there would be prejudice to the plaintiff if the monies are transferred or the properties disposed off. “The mention was not just a mere issue but an active one . Counsels ought to have exchanged their views to have a hearing of the case before this court,” he ruled.

He cited order 42 rule two that provides that a court cannot extend interim orders more than twice when the life of the orders lapses. 

Justice Onyancha said that if this rule would be applied, the orders of freezing Acorn’s accounts ought to have expired yesterday meaning that the court would have been tied not to issue any further orders to the prejudice of Britam.

The judge however noted that the rule could not stop a court from issuing further orders as it would be a hindrance to justice. Justice Onyancha directed that mention of the Britam case will be on December 1.

Business
Premium Financial hardships dampen Easter celebrations among Kenyans
Business
Premium Water PS Korir put on the spot over Sh14m dam land
Business
Premium Looming crisis as top lenders stare at Sh500b in bad loans
Business
Premium Ruto's food security hopes facing storm amid fake fertiliser scam