Modern Coast owner property row ends

An eight-year-old succession case over the control of the Sh5 billion estate of the slain owner of Modern Coast bus service company, Shahid Pervez Butt, has been settled.

The case involved his two widows and son. Mr Butt was gunned down by unknown people on July 11, 2014, in Changamwe as he drove from Moi International Airport, Mombasa.

A High Court bench, comprising justices Eric Ogola, Patrick Otieno and Njoki Mwangi, distributed the property to Mrs Akhtar Butt and her son Haroon Butt and Mrs Regine Butt and her two children, who are minors. The distributed firms include Blue Bell Properties, Modern Coast Builders & Constructors, Pribhai Jivanjee and Company Ltd and Vantage Point Clearing and Forwarding Ltd.

Others are Modern Coast Road Transporters, Vantage Road Transporters, Modern Coast Express and Modern Coast Courier.

The judges directed that Akhtar and Regine receive 6.25 per cent each of the property, while Haroon gets 35 per cent, and the two minors 35 per cent and 17 per cent. They also directed that seven parcels of land be distributed equally. Four bank accounts in the UK, Bermuda, British Isles and Imperial Bank Ltd were listed in the suit documents, but only the UK one was distributed.

The court noted that a number of vehicles were alleged to belong to the tycoon, but, according to the documents presented, only two actually did.

It said the two vehicles are available as part of the estate for distribution as per the formula used in distributing other assets. “In accordance with the Muslim law, Regine Butt and Haroon Butt be and are hereby appointed trustees of such bequests (property) as have been made herein in favour of the deceased’s children.”

In-law’s plea rejected

The court rejected a plea by the grandmother of the minors, Mrs Roselinde Gudrun Ostertag, who is the mother of Regine, to be appointed trustee over any bequest made to them (minors). “We decline the request by Ostertag and instead appoint Regine and Haroon as the trustees in guardianship of the two minors and their shares in the estate.”

The judges added that any assets that may have been inadvertently left out of the confirmed list of the estate and that may be discovered after the judgment shall be distributed using the formula applied.

The court also noted that no evidence was placed before it to prove any impropriety on the part of the deceased in the way the companies and their finances were managed. It further said that if the deceased and Akhtar worked harmoniously, then allocation of shares to her was done in harmony and what was allocated was the reward for her industry in family enterprise.

“We, therefore, find no justification to assign to Akhtar any interest in the shares of the deceased in the subject companies.”

The court also said the application by Akhtar to be vested with interest in the property of the deceased, as matrimonial property as relates to shares in the company, lacked merit. Regine and her mother had wanted the court to declare that the deceased held the assets of the companies in trust for the estate. However, the court said none of the companies outlined in the pleadings was wholly owned by the deceased.

“It is clear to us that the petitioners are surreptitiously urging us to lift the corporate veil by their proposition that the companies in issue are an alter ego of the deceased,” the judges said.

The court noted that there were 11 properties mentioned by Regine and her mother but which lacked documents of title on record. The judges said there were allegations and counter-allegations on the properties, with each side claiming and blaming the other side to be in possession.

The court further directed the administrators of the estate to ensure transmission of all shares to the parties within 90 days.