Guaranty Trust Bank is locked in a court dispute with one of its customers over the release of €9.5 million (Sh1.4 billion) allegedly wired to his account by a foreign company, even as the presiding judge gagged his lawyer, Nelson Havi, from publicly discussing the case.
Justice Fredah Mugambi’s ruling paints a picture of a high-stakes financial dispute mired in allegations of suspicious transactions, potential money laundering, and a fiery battle over lawyers' rights to comment on ongoing cases.
At the heart of the case at the High Court in Nairobi, the bank customer, Wilfred Andita Mathayo, claims that on December 23, 2024, a company known as Canwell Corporation Limited transferred €9.5 million (Sh1.4 billion) to his GT Bank account via Credit Foncier Limited.
He claims the bank initially acknowledged receipt via email on December 24, but later denied receiving the funds. His lawyers submitted documents, including a SWIFT transaction report showing the transfer was "in progress" and a confirmation from Credit Foncier that the funds had not been recalled.
GT Bank countered that while it received a SWIFT MT103 message —an instruction to pay— the funds were never credited to its foreign currency account at Standard Chartered Bank in Frankfurt, Germany.
The bank flagged the transaction as suspicious, noting that Mr Mathayo’s account had been largely inactive since its opening in December 2022, with only Sh550 total transacted between January 2023 and December 2024.
“The account’s stated purpose was personal transactions, yet suddenly, it was expecting €9.5 million,” Justice Mugambi observed while declining Mr Mathayo’s application for release of the disputed funds pending determination of the legal dispute.
“The bank acted prudently by filing a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) with the Financial Reporting Centre,” stated the judge.
The judge observed that the question as to who actually holds the funds and why they were never credited to Mr Mathayo’s account, despite the bank having visibility of the transfer as “incoming,” is a fact-intensive issue that can only be resolved through a full trial.
“It cannot be determined on the basis of conflicting affidavits. Since the bank claims that the funds were never received or credited, Mr Mathayo must provide compelling evidence to counter this assertion,” she stated.
GTBank also fought back with claims that Canwell Corporation Limited, the purported sender, was a ghost company having been dissolved in Hong Kong in 2018, six years before the alleged transfer.
It also referred to name discrepancies, stating that the money transfer documents referred to the sender as "Maxwell" rather than Mr Mathayo's first name, Wilfred.
The bank reiterated that the account was dormant and maintained that no funds were received in the customer’s account. Bank statements from their nostro account in Germany showed no trace of the €9.5 million deposit.
"The transaction bore all the hallmarks of potential money laundering," Justice Mugambi noted, pointing to GTBank's filing of a Suspicious Transaction Report with Kenya's Financial Reporting Centre on Christmas Eve 2024.
The case took a dramatic turn when GTBank sought to muzzle Mr Mathayo’s lawyer, Nelson Havi, over what it called "threatening and intimidating" social media posts.
On February 19, 2025, X (formerly Twitter) Mr Havi’s post became central to the case. Mr Havi defended his right to free speech, arguing that Kenya's Contempt of Court Act was declared unconstitutional in 2015 and that the LSK Code of Conduct is not a penal statute.
The bank accused Mr Havi of posting “threatening and intimidating” messages on X (formerly Twitter), including a February 19, 2025, post warning judges and magistrates.
The court also heard that he had channeled complaints through the Judicial Service Commission against the alleged misconduct of the court’s Deputy Registrar.
But Justice Mugambi delivered a stern rebuke, stating that while freedom of expression is fundamental, it is not absolute when it threatens judicial integrity.
“Given that Mr. Havi’s conduct appears to violate these professional standards by publicly castigating judicial officers and undermining judicial authority through social media, and considering his assertion that he has exhausted internal mechanisms of redress, I find it necessary to issue an order restraining him from making further comments on this case,” said Justice Mugambi.
She explained that such an order was vital to safeguard the dignity of the judiciary, ensure the integrity of the proceedings, and uphold the ethical standards that underpin the legal profession.
“This measure aligns with the court’s Constitutional duty to preserve public confidence and ensure that judicial independence is protected from undue influence or intimidation,” she added.
The gag order prohibits Mr Havi from any further public commentary on the case, a rare restriction that legal experts say could test the boundaries of advocates' free speech rights.
In dismissing Mr Mathayo’s request for credit, the contested money to his account, the court found no evidence that GTBank ever received the funds.
“The bank’s account statements, supported by internal verification, make it clear that the funds were never actually received or credited. Mere instructions to transfer funds or the existence of SWIFT messages do not suffice; there needs to be concrete evidence of transfer and receipt,” said Justice Mugambi.
She ruled that, without sufficient evidence, granting a freeze order risks unjustly penalizing the Bank over assets that are not truly within its control. Mere instructions to transfer funds do not suffice,” Mugambi stated. “There must be concrete evidence of transfer and receipt.”
The court also dismissed the bank’s application to compel Mr Mathayo to deposit Sh25 million as security for the costs anticipated to be incurred, and instead ordered him to deposit Sh5 million.
