When Conrad Law Advocates LLP, established by Conrad Maloba and Nick Ndenda, engaged Nazir Bhaduralli Nurmohammad Jinnah as a manager and head of business development, they hoped he would help their Nairobi-based law firm to meet regulatory requirements and thrive in a competitive landscape.
But the role and Mr Jinnah’s alleged fraudulent actions have now exploded into a legal battle.
Mr Maloba says in court filings that as the head of business development, Mr Jinnah’s roles included performing general office management, administrative and business development duties.
As part of his roles as office manager Mr Jinnah was also involved in the payroll administration, human resource management, petty cash administration, payment of office bills, and general office maintenance. He was even made a signatory to the firm’s bank accounts.
Late last year, Mr Maloba said in court papers, he discovered that Mr Jinnah had allegedly fraudulently transferred Sh113 million from the law firm's bank accounts without the law firm’s consent.
He reported the matter to Kileleshwa Police Station and as the investigations started, Mr Jinnah left the country for the United Kingdom, where he is also a citizen.
According to Mr Maloba, the former manager flew to the UK to evade justice. The law firm then moved to court seeking orders to block Mr Jinnah from interfering with or transferring six high-end vehicles and a parcel of land in Kiambu County, which they believe were acquired from the siphoned funds.
On February 13, 2025, the Employment and Labour Relations court judge Bernard Matanga Manani directed Mr Jinnah to provide a bank guarantee of Sh113.6 million or deposit the money in court within 30 days.
“The court has reasonable basis to require him to provide security for payment to the claimants of the sum claimed (Sh113,655,213) in the event that they (the claimants) succeed in the suit,” ruled Justice Manani.
Consequently, the judge said failure to comply with the directive would automatically lead to the freezing of the six vehicles, the parcel of land and six bank accounts at two leading local banks.
“If Nazir (Mr Jinnah) complies with the order for provision of security as directed, the interim injunction which has been issued will be lifted forthwith. But if he fails to provide the security within the timeframe set by the court, the injunctive orders issued will crystalize,” added the judge.
Justice Manani said the law firm had demonstrated that Mr Jinnah indeed transferred some of his vehicles to some of his relatives in May 2024 after the dispute began and that there was evidence to suggest that he left the country to evade justice
“This affords reasonable probability that he may have been disposing of the assets in a bid to avoid execution of any anticipated decree against him,” observed justice Manani.
While opposing the case, Mr Jinnah told the court that he was not an employee of the law firm but a founding partner and shareholder of the firm.
However, the judge dismissed the assertion stating that a Partnership Deed dispelled the contention: “If the respondent (Mr Jinnah) was a founding partner and shareholder of Conrad Law Advocates LLP, the deed would have spoken to this fact,”
While dismissing his claim that he was a founding partner of the firm, the judge noted that the rules were clear that an advocate cannot team up with a non-advocate to run a legal practice.
“As such, the respondent’s assertion that he was a founding partner and shareholder of Conrad Law Advocates LLP cannot be correct,” said the judge.
Mr Jinnah further alleged that he was providing financial consultancy services to the law firm but the judge said he did not present any material to demonstrate his expertise in finance matters.
The court, therefore, was doubtful, based on the preliminary material before it, that Mr Jinnah was a finance consultant for the firm.
The court noted that the three motor vehicles were registered in the name of Mr Jinnah, while three others were initially registered in his name but were transferred to some of his relatives, including his children who are named as interested parties in the court papers.
“As such and in view of the analysis, I hereby issue an order of interim injunction barring him and or the Interested Parties and or their agents from transferring, pledging, assigning, securitizing or in any other way interfering with the funds that may be in the accounts pending resolution of the instant dispute,” ruled the judge.
On the funds in question, the judge said the totality of the evidence supplied pointed to the fact that the law firm and Mr Jinnah had disagreements relating to funds, some of which belonged to the firm’s clients.
“It is also apparent that the funds were in the custody of the respondent (Mr Jinnah) who was being asked to remit them back to either the claimants or their clients,” said justice Manani.
The judge said there was evidence to show that Mr Jinnah might have irregularly redirected funds that came into his possession by reason of his employment.
