Kenya Insights

Tag: Khaminwa and Co Advocates

  • The Unsettling Many Faces Of Controversial Nazir Jinnah

    The Unsettling Many Faces Of Controversial Nazir Jinnah

    Until October 2022, Nazir Bhaduralli NurMohammad Jinnah was hiding in plain sight masquerading as a high end lawyer. It was the English Point Marina scandal in 2022 that blew his cover and brought him to the public spotlight.

    KCB Group had seized the Mombasa’s luxury property English Point Marina and placed Pearl Beach Hotels, the real estate firm that owns it, under statutory management over a Sh5.2 billion debt. Pearl Beach Hotels had been struggling to meet its obligations to the bank over the years forcing KCB to place it under administration in June 2022.

    Mr. Nazir is the Director of Pearl Beach Hotels.

    Kenya’s Swindler ‘Lawyer’

    It came to surface that he was minting millions from unsuspecting Kenyans and investors posing as distinguished lawyer with reputable law firms, in fact, he acted as the legal director in the KCB case which blew his cover.

    For at least a decade, Nazir made millions in legal fees. Armed with a professional profile that would cow most lawyers across the globe, he managed to net clients who believed that he is one of the best advocates in Kenya. From work stints with top law firms including Khaminwa & Khaminwa Advocates and MMC-Asafo, Conrad Law & Consultancy in Nairobi to Piper May Solicitors in the UK and Mussolini & Dessel in the US, Jinnah’s claimed experience made him appear a cut above the rest.

    Not even the most senior advocates at the law firm Conrad Law & Consultancy, where Jinnah worked, could match his profile. He was in ozone layer and hot as corona.

    In the same year, Mr. Nazir was subjected to impersonation investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) who did not only find that he was practicing without certification but that he had minted millions from many.

    He was charged eventually for posing as an associate of a reputable law firm in Kenya in a divorce case that had required him to travel to London as a lead counsel.

    Nazir was charged that between the year 2013 and 2017 in Nairobi with intent to defraud Herbas Singh Birdi falsely presented himself to be an advocate of the High Court of Kenya as an associate of Khaminwa and Khaminwa advocates.

    Nazir Jailed

    Yesterday, he was sentenced to serve 18 months for presenting himself as an advocate .

    The businessman was given an alternative of paying a fine each of Sh250,000.

    Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Dolphina Alego found him guilty of presenting himself as an advocate of the High Court of Kenya.

    He was also found guilty of making a document without authority and uttering false document.

    “Conclusively, this court finds that the prosecution has proved their case in all the charges beyond reasonable doubt and this court finds that accused person is guilty herein and court convict accordingly,” ruled the court.

    The charge sheet stated that with intent to defraud and without lawful authority, he made a letter for sale of property LR. No. (4/171-Nyari-Nairobi addressed to Singh purporting it to be genuine letter written and issued by Senior Counsel Khaminwa law firm.

    During the hearing Law Society of Kenya categorically confirmed to the court Nazir was not an advocate or it member.

    Sonny Birdi who was the first witness in the case told the court that he met Nazir in 2013 who was known to his father and was a consultant with Khaminwa advocates. That he was going through his divorce in the United Kingdom.

    He needed help and that the accused now convict would be the lead counsel in Kenya. He testified that he had a UK solicitor.

    He wrote a letter of appointment to the UK solicitor as lead counsel for the case. The case was in the UK and he paid for him to travel to UK.

    Accused traveled to the UK twice.

    Court heard that Nazir traveled to Canada for over six months and that his father went to khaminwa advocates to follow up on his land case and that is when he learnt Nazir has never been their employee, agent or partner.

    In his defense, he denied receiving Sh5, 540,000 from Agwawal Khan and Company and that he has no idea wherethe money went to.

    Retired engineer Sunny Birdi in his testimony told the court the last payment of the sale of his land assets of Farhana Properties limited in Mombasa was paid to Nazir.

    The convict also denied presenting himself as an advocate at Khaminwa law firm.

    Digital transformation of Nazir

    As soon as he had been exposed and became a subject of controversy, Nazir went back to the drawing board and came up with a campaign strategy to counter his negative press image. He retained services of PR firm to cleanse his dirty image, Kenya Insights has learned.

    In nearly similar strategy, Nazir has been planting PR articles in major publications in Kenya and in which he keeps switching his roles in his op-eds from being an investor, climate change activist, lifestyle, road safety expert, to reverting to negative stereotype and being a problem facing Pinewood resort in internal problems from within the Kanji family beginning with English Point Marina up to the recent attack at the hotel.

    It’s ridiculous that Mr. Nazir has been trying so hard to counter the negative stories of him being a fake lawyer by posing as a man of questionable characters, if this was a movie, the Netflix’s own ‘Twitter Swindler’ would come close to describing it.

    This is just but a sample of many faces that Nazir has put up in planted articles across the mainstream media and yet again trying to paint himself as a man cut above the rest. This is likely aimed at building his portfolio of whatever he’s looking at.


    How to become a lawyer in Kenya

    In order for one to become a certified lawyer in Kenya, one has to acquire an education from an institution  recognized by the Council of Legal Education in Kenya.

    This takes four years after which they graduate with a Bachelor’s degree in law, then attend the Kenya School of Law for two years.

    At the Kenya School of Law, one undergoes an advocates training program which is conducted for one year in-house after which one moves to pupillage which  is a 12-month training period for those aiming to qualify as barristers (a person called to the bar and entitled to practice as an advocate, particularly in the higher courts), usually spent in a barristers’ chambers.

    Through the LSK search engine, a website that publishes information regarding the status of its members – one can confirm the authenticity of his/her potential lawyer before making a further move. The website lists lawyers who are dormant or inactive (not certified to practice), suspended or struck off the Roll of Advocates and therefore not allowed to practice and those who are active and certified to practice at that period.

    Here a list of Dos and Don’ts when engaging a lawyer in Kenya:

    1. Do the due diligence and ask the necessary questions – Every advocate licensed to practice in Kenya is issued with a practicing certificate by the Law Society of Kenya. As a starting point, when dealing with a lawyer you’ve never dealt with before, always ask for a copy of their practicing certificate. Go a step further because practicing certificates can be forged. The Law Society of Kenya maintains a search engine  where you can search for an Advocate by name or admission number. You can access the same here. As an added measure you can also ask for a law firm’s professional indemnity cover and registration documents as well as recommendations from former clients. DO NOT trust a person on the basis of offices, a name plaque and well made suits.
    • Get a retainer or engagement letter signed – once you are satisfied that a lawyer is a qualified advocate, ensure that there is an agreement in writing capturing key points such as:
      • The  scope of work the advocate is to do for you – this makes it clear what the instructions are so that if the advocate goes beyond the agreed instructions, you can have recourse; and
      • The agreed fees, whether a lump sum or hourly rates – this prevents a client from being lumped up with unverifiable fees and costs.

    DO NOT deposit any funds or hand over custody of sensitive documents before you do the due diligence and sign an engagement letter.

    • Get everything in writing – when sending original title documents such as certificates of title to land or shares or other assets, always ensure that the firm’s receipt of those documents is acknowledged in writing and the reason for the firm’s custody of those documents is well documented. Remember verbal contracts are not worth the paper they are written on!
  • Respite For British Couple In Sh500M Property Row With Lawyer John Ohaga

    Respite For British Couple In Sh500M Property Row With Lawyer John Ohaga

    A British couple entangled in an ownership dispute of a multimillion property with a senior lawyer and his family members got a reprieve after High Court invalidated an eviction order and reinstated them to their premises.

    Andrian and Carolyne Radcliffe, a British couple were evicted from the suit property L.R Number 1196/32 registered under John Cecil Ball situated along Train Lane in Karen, Nairobi after living there for 33 years.

    The eviction was executed by Karen police officers and Jephys Auctioneers who carted away all household goods and demolished the house.

     

    “Having demolished the house in which the petitioner with his family, Mr Radcliffe will decide how he wants to continue possession of the property until the issue of proprietorship is determined. If he wants to put up a tent, a mobile house on the land, it’s for him to make that decision,” said Justice Oscar Angote, while quashing the eviction order.

    Radlicliffe, 60, and his wife are currently staying with friends following the eviction despite having occupied the contested land since August 1, 1989.

    At the center of the long running ownership dispute is a Senior Counsel and Managing Partner of TripleOKlaw Advocates John M Ohanga, his wife, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, who the Britons accuse of fraudulently dispossessing then of the 5.7 acres.

    ”It is the Petitioner’s case that he only learnt of the case filed at the Chief Magistrates court when he saw the Order with the Auctioneer; that his advocate was then able to get the pleadings in MC ELC No. E008 of 2022 together with the order of eviction and that he has looked at the copy of title to the suit property annexed by the 1st Respondent in MC ELC No. E008 of 2022 and has had an opportunity to compare it with the copy which was annexed in the valuation report by Knight Frank dated 2nd June 2004, and that there are reasons to believe that the title relied upon by the 1st Respondent is a forgery,” the petitioner told the court.

    Mr Ohaga had initially acted as the couple’s attorney in a suite they instituted seeking adverse possession of the property but Mr Radcliffe claims the lawyer turned against them to acquire the Sh500 million property with his family.

    This was after Kena Properties whose directors are Mr Ohaga’s wife, her sister Jean Ngini Kamau and mother-in-law Mrs Leah Ngini.

    Incidentally, the disputed land which Ohaga’s nuclear and extended family members lay claim for purposes of expansion prospects of St. Cristopher International School is also owned by Kane Properties directors.

    The court was also told that they are the Directors and shareholders of St. Christopher’s Holdings Limited; that St. Christopher’s Holdings Limited is the proprietor of St Christopher’s International School which has been in operation for over 40years and that the property on which St. Christopher’s International School is built is owned by the 1stRespondent(Ohaga’s wife) and has been owned by the family since 1965.

    The court was also told that the law firm of TripleOKlaw Advocates LLP also advises both the 1stRespondent as well as St. Christopher’s Holdings Limited with respect to all their legal work including property acquisitions and the transactions relating thereto and that the Petitioner and his wife Carolyne are known to her husband and herself.

    Kena Properties is said to have used the title of the land which the Britons allege to be forgery, to obtain Sh40M loan at Prime Bank. The firm claims it bought the property for Sh135M.

    Mr Radcliffe has named Kena Properties Limited as the first respondent in the petition while Mr Ohaga is the fifth respondent. Prime Bank and Jephys Auctioneer are interested parties in the suit.

    Adrian says he first came to Kenya in 1984 while doing his Master’s Thesis before he started working in Marsabit in 1986.

    The court heard that later came to Nairobi in 1988 and moved to the suit property in 1989 after being shown the land by Donald Vincent Limited.

    However, Donald Vincent Limited was not the registered owner but he promised to introduce to the proprietor (John Cecil Ball, now deceased) of the property later.

    It was not until 1992 when Andrian received a letter from the registered owner, John Cecil Ball about the outstanding land rates arrears amounting to Sh120, 000 which the petitioner cleared in full.

    Ball died in 2012 while his wife Daphne Ball passed on in 2019.

    Thereafter, in 2005, Andrian through Sheila and Sheikh & Company Advocates filed for adverse possession of the land which was dismissed by court.

    Thereafter, Andrian told the court that he got John Ohaga whose daughter went to the same school with his daughter.

    Just like Sheila & Sheikh Advocates, Ohaga advised him not to appeal against the dismissal of the suit.

    “According to the petitioner, he does not know at what point John Ohaga stopped representing him and begun acting against his interest in regard to the suit property.” Court documents show.

    However, in a replying affidavit, Ohaga terms the petitioner a pathological liar.

    “I will state from the outset that the affidavits of the Petitioner in support of both the Petition and the Notice of Motion are riddled with lies and half-truths.”

    “I wish to first confirm that the petitioner and his wife Carolyne are both well known to me as their daughter Katie and my daughter went to the same school and were close friends. Indeed, my daughter has slept over at the petitioner’s residence and his daughter has similarly slept over at our house on several occasions.” He continues.

    “My wife and I therefore considered the Petitioner and his wife to be our friends.” Ohaga says through his lawyer James Ochieng, his senior partner at TripleOKLaw.

    In 2014, Ohaga wrote to  Andrian, his former client vide a letter dated September 16, 2014 informing him that the suit property had been transferred to another buyer whom he did not disclose and a similar reminder through a letter dated May 25, 2015.

    Consequently, through a letter dated May 24, 2016, Andrian told the court that Ohaga demanded payment of monthly rent from his and forwarded him a tenancy agreement for signing.

    The petitioner told the court that he has continued to receive land rates demand notices as late as last year, 2021 with regard to the suit property in the name of Ball.

    ”It was deponed by the Petitioner that the City Council of Nairobi, now the City County Government of Nairobi, has continued to send him demand notices for payment of rates in regard to the property known as L. R. No. 196/32 in the name of John Cecil Ball and that as late as 2021, he received the demand notice and paid the requisite rates,” the court document reads in part.

    On February 2018, Andrian told the court he received communication that the property had been sold and should consider paying rent to the new owner.

    He was then evicted on February 4, 2022 by police and auctioneers through ex parte orders which have since been vacated by Justice O. A Angote.

    “This Court hereby sets aside the ex parte orders issued by Hon. D. M. Kivuti (Principal Magistrate) on January 21, 2022 and confirmed on January 27, 2022 in the Chief Magistrate’s Milimani ELC E008 of 2022 between Kena Properties Limited and Andrian Radcliffe pending hearing and determination of the petition.” The order reads in part.

    Further, an order was issued reinstating the petitioner and his family back to the suit property pending hearing and determination of the petition.

    “I also confirm that the 1st Respondent, Kena Properties Limited, is well known to me and has been a client of the Firm for a considerable period of time. I also confirm that the directors of the 1st Respondent are Mrs. Carolla Ohaga who is my wife, Ms. Jean Kamau who is my wife’s sister, and Mrs. Leah Ngini who is my wife’s mother.” Ohaga says through a replying affidavit.

    The petitioner is being represented by Khaminwa and Co Advocates.

    While arguing in his favor, Dr Khaminwa told the court in part while punching holes in Mr Ohaga’s case, “The Petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Petitioner believed that the 5th Respondent, who was his advocate, would guide him on the intricacies of the law; that the letter dated 28thSeptember, 2011 addressed to the Petitioner and his wife shows that the 5th Respondent was his advocate; that the letter is an acknowledgement of payment of legal fees and that in the letter of 16th September, 2014 addressed to the Petitioner and signed by the 5th Respondent, the 5th Respondent informed the Petitioner that the land had been transferred to a buyer but did not disclose the name of the buyer, and yet the buyer was the 5th Respondent and his wife.”

    Dr Khaminwa told the court, “it is curious that the individual who is supposed to be the lawyer of the Petitioner is now the buyer of the suit property but did not disclose that fact to the Petitioner; that the 5th Respondent(Mr Ohaga) wants to be the Petitioner’s lawyer and the lawyer for himself and that the Petitioner had a lot of trust in the 5th Respondent, which trust was breached.”

    Dr Khaminwa submitted that it is difficult to understand how the Respondents allowed the Petitioner and his family to occupy the suit land for more than 20 years without paying any rent at all and yet they (the Respondents) were required by monthly instalments to liquidate an alleged loan at commercial rates and that the transfer of the suit property to the 1stRespondent was suspicious and fraudulent.