The Court of Appeal has rejected an application by a giant real-estate development firm, Pioneer Holdings (Africa) Limited to escalate a dispute over the pursuit of Sh95.2 million that sunk with collapsed stoke brokerage firm Francis Thuo and Partners to the Supreme Court.
The real estate firm owns key properties across the country including Pioneer House on Moi Avenue, Nairobi, Pollock Court in Westlands Nairobi, Pioneer Koinange Street Nairobi, Pioneer Kenyatta Avenue Nairobi, Pioneer Tom Mboya Street, Nairobi, Pioneer Kimathi Street, Nairobi and Pioneer Oginga Odinga Street, Kisumu among others.
Pioneer Holdings (Africa) Limited sought to pursue a second appeal at the apex court after its chase of the money held in shares, share bonuses, and dividends by the brokerage firm was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in May 2019.
A different bench of the appellate court ruled that the issues raised by Pioneer Holdings do not reveal any conflict as far as the interpretation and applicability of the Limitation of Actions Act was concerned.
“The issues also do not, in our view, transcend the personal interests of the applicant. They are in their very nature ordinary issues that do not rise beyond the relationship (contractual or otherwise) between the applicant and the 1st respondent (Francis Thuo) and the dispute emanating therefrom,” Justices Daniel Musinga, Asike-Makhanda and Gatembu Kairu said.
The judges added that there were no issues of general public importance involved, or that the applicant was raising novel issues of law for determination by the Supreme Court.
Francis Thuo and Partners collapsed under the weight of illiquidity in 2006, with more than Sh200 million from investors.
Pioneer Holdings stated that between 1993 and 1994, the brokerage firm failed to deliver to it shares that it had already paid for, prompting protracted demands and follow-up.
Before the matter was resolved, Francis Thuo was placed under statutory management on March 5, 2007.
The real estate development firm said it had purchased shares valued at Sh74.8 million which had not been delivered.
Further, dividends declared by the different companies amounting to Sh20 million had also not been paid to the firm.
The firm moved to court seeking a judgment for Sh95.2 million being the total of the value of the securities that had not been delivered and for declared dividends that had not been paid.
The case was, however, dismissed after Capital Markets Authority (CMA) challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine the dispute.
The capital markets regulator argued that the matter should have first been handled under mechanisms provided under the CMA Act before moving to the High Court.
The regulator further said the matter was time-barred as the real-estate development firm moved to court in 2014, an argument that was upheld by the court.
The firm filed an appeal, which was equally dismissed before the firm sought to move the case to the Supreme Court.
