Cytonn boss squares up for Britam fight

Former chief executive of Britam Asset Managers, a subsidiary of Britam Holdings, has accused his former employer of trying to use criminal law to stop business competition.

Cytonn Edwin Dande. FILE PHOTO | NMG 

IN SUMMARY

  • Edwin Dande accused Britam of maliciously instituting the suit against them and vowed to face the charges and clear their name.

Advertisement

An ex-chief executive of Britam Asset Managers, a subsidiary of Britam Holdings #ticker:BRIT, has accused his former employer of trying to use criminal law to stop business competition.

Mr Edwin Dande, in a statement issued a day after the court threw out his bid to stop a criminal case that Britam filed against him and three others, reckoned that the criminal process was not against Cytonn, a company he cofounded, and where he is now chief executive officer.

He accused Britam of maliciously instituting the suit against them and vowed to face the charges and clear their name.

Mr Dande, Ms Elizabeth Nailantei Nkukuu, Ms Patricia Njeri Wanjama and Mr Shiv Arora on Tuesday lost a bid to stop their prosecution over alleged irregular sums from Britam-affiliated accounts to rival companies, which they deny.

“We disagree with the ruling, but now that we have not succeeded to have the High Court stop the malicious prosecution, and knowing that we are completely innocent, we have decided to take the matter head-on and go to full trial to exonerate our names,” said Mr Dande.

Britam’s corporate affairs director Muthoga Ngera told the Business Daily that the insurer will not respond to the allegations made by Mr Dande yesterday since the matter is still pending in court.

The four were in 2016 charged with the criminal offence relating to theft by servants for the sum of Sh1.1 billion, which they contested in the High Court.

They told the court that they never benefited from the cash and that the issue had been resolved after Britam and property development group Acorn and seven of its affiliates reached a settlement.

Justice John Mativo on Tuesday ruled that the managers had failed to prove that the decision by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) is irrational or illegal or how their rights are infringed, noting that all grounds raised can be dealt by the trial court.

More From Business Daily
This page might use cookies if your analytics vendor requires them. Accept