Victoria Commercial Bank’s application to the High Court to overturn the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to drop criminal charges against the owners of Nyama Mama Restaurant was rejected.

The judge, delivering a judgment on November 9, ruled that the bank had not produced the DPP’s withdrawal decision and that references in pleadings could not replace the actual document.

The court added that without the impugned decision or a satisfactory explanation for its absence, it would be forced to infer its contents from secondary accounts, which would undermine the purpose of the law.

The dispute dates back to 2015 when Jayesh Shanghavi, Nina Shanghavi and their company Good Earth (Group) Ltd approached the bank for credit facilities to fund their restaurant operations.

Victoria Commercial Bank says it subsequently extended working capital, overdraft, term-loan and guarantee facilities running into hundreds of millions of shillings, secured by various properties, debentures, share pledges and personal guarantees.

The bank alleges the couple used deceptive means to obtain additional facilities while withholding the required security document.

In 2021 the DPP charged the Shanghavis and Good Earth (Group) Ltd with obtaining security by false pretences under Section 314 of the Penal Code, alleging that between December 10, 2018 and November 23, 2020 they induced the bank to register a charge over an apartment to secure a loan of KSh520 million.

The charges were dismissed after the DPP concluded the matter was commercial in nature and should be resolved in civil court; a Milimani court allowed the withdrawal on July 11, 2024 under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Victoria Commercial Bank argued that the DPP had terminated the case without identifying new evidence or material change to justify the move, and that the existence of civil proceedings did not justify ending the criminal case.

The DPP and the directors maintained that the prosecution was lawfully discontinued after a review found the evidence insufficient to sustain the charges.

The directors further contended that the criminal proceedings were initiated for extraneous purposes and that the bank suffered no actionable injustice, suggesting that any remedy lay in appealing the trial court order or pursuing a private prosecution.

The High Court’s decision follows a recent Kiambu High Court ruling that quashed an April 2026 DPP letter directing fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioners.