Why DPP Igonga is seeking withdrawal of fraud case against Artur

 

American businessman Artur Tigranyan while appearing in court. [Nancy Gitonga, Standard]

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga now wants to withdraw a fraud and forgery case against American businessman Artur Tigranyan and two others.

Appearing before Milimani Principal Magistrate Paul Mutai, the DPP, through State Prosecutor Virginia Kariuki, informed the court that it was seeking to terminate the criminal proceedings under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The application to drop the criminal charges against Artur and his co-accused, Daniel Kinuthia, and Felix Ochieng was made after all prosecution witnesses had testified, save for the investigating officer, who was scheduled to testify in the case.

According to the prosecution, the decision to withdraw the case followed a review conducted of the charges and evidence by the DPP.

“At the conclusion of the review, and having considered all the circumstances surrounding the case, the DPP formed the opinion that the dispute between the parties would be best resolved through civil proceedings,” the prosecutor Kairuki told the court.

The State further argued that the core issue in dispute relates to the directorship and shareholding of Mr Ceiling Limited, a matter it said falls squarely within the jurisdiction of a civil court.

The prosecution also cited what it termed “new discoveries,” including claims that the complainants were silent directors, that the disputed share transfers were processed through the company registry, and that the signatures used in the transfer documents were digital signatures allegedly belonging to the complainants, namely Artak Harutyunyan and Tigran Arzumanya.

However, the complainants, through their lawyer James Oketch, strongly opposed the withdrawal, arguing that the application was abrupt, unconstitutional, and not in the public interest.

The complainants contended that the reason given by the DPP does not justify the discontinuance of the criminal trial at such an advanced stage.

They argued that allowing the withdrawal would violate their constitutional right to a fair hearing and defeat the very purpose of a criminal prosecution.

“The acts complained of are criminal in nature, and the law does not bar parallel criminal and civil proceedings to continue simultaneously,” the complainants submitted, citing Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The complainants further accused the prosecution of sidelining victims in the decision-making process, contrary to the Victims Protection Act and Article 157 of the Constitution, which requires the DPP to act in the public interest and avoid abuse of the legal process.

Court records show that on March 26, 2024, the DPP charged Tigranyan, Daniel Kinuthia, and Felix Ochieng with conspiracy to defraud.

The prosecution alleges that between May 2, 2023 and August 2, 2023, the three conspired to illegally transfer 500 shares belonging to Artak Harutyunyan and 250 shares belonging to Tigran Arzumanyan to Hope June Okumu, falsely claiming they had obtained the shareholders’ consent.

In a separate count, Tigranyan and Ochieng are accused of forging a share transfer deed purporting to have been signed and stamped by city lawyer Paul Minishi.

They are also charged with stealing 500 shares of Mr Ceiling Limited valued at Sh50,000.

“On diverse dates between May 2, 2023 and August 2, 2023, at the Registrar of Companies within Nairobi County, jointly with others not before the court, the accused stole 500 shares of Mr Ceiling Limited and transferred them to Hope June Okumu,” part of the charge sheet reads.

The complainants maintain that investigators from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations completed their probes and gathered sufficient evidence, including expert testimony, to sustain the charges.

They also raised concerns over what they described as undue influence and lack of transparency within the prosecution, noting that the withdrawal application was made after the prosecutor informed the court she had received “communication from above.”

Magistrate Mutai directed parties to await a ruling on the application, which will be delivered on February 26, 2026.