Jitesh lawyers want money laundering case dismissed

Dar es Salaam. Lawyers defending businessman Jitesh Jayantilal Ladwa who faces forgery and money laundering charges have asked the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court to dismiss the case against him over lack of jurisdiction.

Ladwa faces seven counts including that of forgery, laundering Sh601 million he obtained from tenants of Msasani Peninsula Flats Ltd said to be jointly owned by him and his relatives. Prosecutors have also accused him of forging a letter to show that the company had Indian Ocean Hotels Limites as an agent of tenants of the family of businessman, the late Walji Ladwa.

A panel of five lawyers led by Jeremiah Mtobesya have strongly objected to the case on ground that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Yesterday, Mr Mtobesya claimed that the details of the charges showed that the accused was one of the shareholders and directors of those companies, so there were litigation and administrative matters to establish who had the authority to collect the rent.

He asserted that the amendment of section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) had deprived the court from hearing such proceedings.

The section says for cases of a criminal or administrative nature, it was imperative that the litigation or administrative issues be resolved before filing a criminal case.

“Since the clause sets out the mandatory requirement, it deprives the court of the power to hear the case. It is therefore our intention for the court to accept that it has no jurisdiction to hear this case, to cancel the indictment and acquit the accused,” said Mr Mtobesya.

State Attorney Timothy Mmari said the charges against the accused were based on economic sabotage which were being heard by the High Court (Corruption and Economic Sabotage Division).

He added that since the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, it has no jurisdiction to make such an order or to do anything outside the jurisdiction of the law in sections 243, 245 and 356 of the CPA.

He noted that the jurisdiction of the court was to conduct preliminary hearing by explaining the charges to the accused, inform him of jurisdiction of the court and read testimony of witnessed to enable him organize his defence.

Senior State Attorney Ester Martin claimed that any argument from the defendant should then be submitted to the court with jurisdiction and insisted that the court should focus only on its jurisdiction and not go beyond that jurisdiction.

Resident Magistrate Pamela Mazengo postponed the case until July 21, this year when she will rule on the request.