The High Court has dismissed applications by senior government officials and businessman Jayesh Saini seeking to have their names struck out of a multi-million-shilling lawsuit over the alleged development of specialised software for the Government of Kenya.
In a ruling delivered on June 25, 2026, the court held that the case raises serious triable issues that can only be resolved through a full hearing and not at the preliminary stage.
The applications had been filed by the Principal Secretary at the National Treasury, the Head of Public Service, the Attorney General and businessman Jayesh Saini, who argued that they had been improperly joined in the proceedings.
The government officials maintained that the plaintiffs had failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against them, describing the suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
Saini, the fourth defendant, argued that he had no contractual relationship or direct communication with the plaintiffs and therefore could not be held liable. He also denied having any authority to procure government contracts or finance projects on behalf of the State.
However, the court found that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts linking all the defendants to the disputed software project.
The judge noted that the plaintiffs alleged the fifth defendant acted as an agent of the government and made representations with the knowledge and approval of the other defendants, including senior government officials.
According to the court, the plaintiffs further claimed that meetings involving officials from the National Treasury, the Head of Public Service and Jayesh Saini were held to discuss financing the software project and that the funds were to come from the National Treasury’s confidential vote.
The judge ruled that the truthfulness of those allegations can only be established during the trial after witnesses testify and evidence is examined.
On Saini’s application, the court held that the plaintiffs had made specific allegations that he introduced himself as the person responsible for financing the project, participated in meetings and made representations regarding the funding and implementation of the software.
The court found that those claims, if proved at trial, could establish liability and therefore disclosed a prima facie case against him.
The judge further held that striking out the defendants at this stage would amount to determining contested facts through affidavit evidence instead of a full trial, contrary to established legal principles.
Consequently, the court dismissed both applications, paving the way for all the defendants to remain parties to the suit as the case proceeds to hearing.
