Briton’s bid to freeze Anne Amadi accounts flops

anne amadi

Former Judiciary Chief Registrar Anne Amadi.

Photo credit: Dennis Onsongo | Nation Media Group

A British trader who was defrauded of Sh100 million in a fake gold deal has failed to convince the Court of Appeal to freeze the personal bank accounts of former Judiciary Chief Registrar Anne Amadi.

The court said that although Demetrios Bradshaw, a director Bruton Gold Trading, had an arguable case, he had admitted that the funds meant to buy gold were withdrawn immediately they were deposited in the accounts of Amadi & Associates Advocates.

Justices Sankale ole Kantai, Mumbi Ngugi and Mwaniki Gachoka said the orders being sought by the Briton were incapable of being granted.

The Dubai based firm sued Ms Amadi, her son Brian Ochieng and three other lawyers seeking a refund of the millions he paid in US dollars to buy 1,500-kilo gold bars in 2021. Others named in the case are lawyers Andrew Njenga and Adrian Topoti as well as Mr Daniel Ndegwa Kangara alias Daniel Muriithi and Mr Edward Taylor alias Mboronda Seyenkulo Sakor.

Mr Ochieng and Mr Kiarie are lawyers with Amadi & Associates, while Mr Kangara was representing a company called Universal Gold Logistics Limited (UGL). Mr Sakor was said to have been the vendor of the gold.

The Briton had initially obtained orders freezing Ms Amadi’s personal bank accounts but Justice Alfred Mabeya lifted the order, stating that Ms Amadi resigned from the law firm after joining the Judiciary in 2014.

The judge said there was nothing to show that Ms Amadi was involved in the day-to-day running of the law firm and that Mr Ochieng was an adult who is supposed to carry his own cross independent of his mother.

“It cannot be the case that a son has eaten the sour grapes so the mother’s peace should be set on edge,” the judge ruled in June last year.

The Briton rushed to the Court of Appeal arguing that the trial court took a pre-determined position and made a final determination at a preliminary stage of the suit. Ms Amadi maintained that she was never a signatory to the bank accounts and was incapable of making withdrawals or any other transaction on them.

She added that she stood to be unfairly financially crippled if the orders sought were granted as she would be barred from providing for herself and her family.