Rwandese Investor Desire Muhinyunza with his lawyer Danstan Omari at Milimani Law Courts
It is a big relief to Rwandese Investor Desire Muhinyunza after the High Court declared that he was the beneficial owner of the disputed sh 400 million tech company StayOnline Kenya Ltd
Justice Alfred Mabeya ruled that the Rwandese National was the one who initiated and caused the registration of the company that sells merchandise online and financed its establishment and operations and that businessman Kirimi Koome who also claimed to own the company, committed fraud for not filling forms for beneficial ownership properly.
He noted that Desire wired from Rwanda the first injection of USD 29,000 for the company to start its operation and controlled its operations.
“The first defendant (Koome) was only his front awaiting for the plaintiff immigration status to be regularized. I find and hold the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the company and the 1st defendant committed a fraud by not filling the form for the beneficial ownership properly at the time of incorporation of the company,” ruled the Judge.
Lawyer Danstan Omari, the lead counsel for Rwandese Investor Desire Muhinyunza (right in sleeveless jacket ) accompanied by other lawyers, addresses the media at Milimani law courts after the high court judgment.
In the case, Muhinyuza through his lawyer Dastan Omari sued Koome seeking to control the company which he claimed was part of StayOnline Rwanda.
Muhinyunza had told the court that Koome had only been chosen as Stay Online Limited’s agent in Kenya because of the challenges faced by a foreigner to register a company name in the country.
Koome has since been charged with stealing Ksh.14,945,000 (USD 100,000) property of Stay Online Limited which had been entrusted to him to make payment of provision of taxes for the said company.
He was also charged with making a false entry in a document for payment of USD 100,000 9ksh.14 million) to his USD Account domiciled at Equity Bank and giving false information to the police.
Justice Mabeya on Wednesday ruled that the demand and pocketing of sh 100,000 was without basis as there was no tax paid out on that money and therefore same is recoverable from him.
“The plaintiffs have proved their plaint to the required standards and the same is allowed,” ruled the Judge.