The fight for the control of a multibillion-shilling Galot Group of companies took a new twist after a magistrate dismissed forgery charges against Mohan Galot and his wife Santoshi.
But as the chief magistrate Danie Ogembo (now a judge at the High Court) freed the two, he urged the disputing relatives to solve their disputes amicably. “The parties herein are said to be family members of the wider Galot family. There is need to encourage harmony between the various parties,” the magistrate said.
Mohan has been fighting for the control of the Galot Industries Limited, together with his nephews Pravin and Rajesh. The companies include Manchester Outfitters Limited, King Woolen Mills Limited and Mohan Meakin Kenya Limited, London Distillers Kenya Ltd and MG Park Ltd.
The companies deal in a number of businesses, including holding property, shares, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage distillery, bottling and sale, as well as fabric and cloth making. They accuse each other of colluding to dislodge the other from the companies as well as filing parallel returns to the registrar.
The nephews accused Mohan of forging signatures of public officers in the Lands ministry and Registrar of Companies to transfer three prime properties to MG Park Ltd without the consent of the other directors of Galot Industries.
The charges against them stated that on about July 30, 2007, at Registrar of Companies in Nairobi, jointly with others, the two obtained registration of Galot Industries company directors claiming to have been signed and issued by Registrar of Companies Wilson Gikonyo.But as the case was about to begin, the complainants said they no longer wish to proceed with the case.
The court further noted that there were pending matters before the High Court, which will determine the directors and shareholders of Galot Industries. He said the crux of the matter revolved around the directorship and shareholding of the companies and it was only the High Court, which has the jurisdiction to determine the issue. “There is no doubt in my mind that the parties herein have had serious legal differences. The same appears to be long drawn and acrimonious,” the court noted.