Patel family embroiled in Sh2bn shares dispute over Mombasa Cement, four other firms
A family dispute has erupted over billions of shillings worth of shares in Mombasa Cement and four other companies, with a nephew of the late businessman Hasmukh Kanji Patel accusing his uncle of fraudulently acquiring his late father’s interests in the firms.
Khalid Patel, a nephew of the late Mombasa philanthropist and business magnate, claims his uncle unlawfully took over shares belonging to his father, Arvind Kanji Premji Patel, who died in 2013.
The five companies at the centre of the dispute are Mombasa Cement, Vishna Holding Limited, Kavee Quarries Limited, Venus Metal Developers Limited and Sunny Construction Company Limited.
Hasmukh, who died in 2024, was widely celebrated for his philanthropic activities, including feeding the poor and settling hospital bills for patients.
In court papers, Khalid alleges that his uncle obtained a grant of probate on January 29, 2014, using a forged will and subsequently facilitated the transfer of his father’s shares through fraudulent documentation.
He further accuses his elder brother, Suraj Patel, and directors of the five companies of registering share transfers bearing their late father’s forged signature, backdating the documents and failing to remit proceeds and outstanding payments to the beneficiaries.
According to a notice of motion dated December 9, 2025, the alleged backdating was intended to conceal the fact that Arvind was critically ill and receiving treatment in India when the transfers were purportedly executed.
Khalid says forensic examination by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) supports his allegations that the signature on the transfer documents was forged.
He has sued Suraj, who is a director of the five companies, the Registrar of Companies and the companies themselves.
Khalid says he is the personal representative of his father’s estate under a limited grant of letters of administration ad litem issued by the Mombasa Chief Magistrate’s Court on November 19, 2025.
He wants the court to issue temporary injunctions restraining the companies from altering their share registers, registering encumbrances, disposing of unallotted shares or selling assets pending determination of the dispute.
The assets he wants protected include interests in other companies, machinery, land and bank accounts.
He is also seeking a declaration that the transfer of his father’s shares to Suraj was illegal, fraudulent and void.
Khalid wants the Registrar of Companies directed to cancel the disputed transfers and rectify the companies’ registers by restoring the shares to his father’s estate.
The disputed holdings comprise 27,885 shares in Mombasa Cement, 13,834 in Vishna Holding, 400 in Kavee Quarries, 98,000 in Venus Metal Developers and 12,000 in Sunny Construction.
He is further seeking payment of outstanding credits allegedly owed to his father, together with interest at 14 per cent per annum.
Specifically, he wants Kavee Quarries ordered to pay the estate Sh12,790,354 and Venus Metal Developers Sh719,624, with interest accruing from May 22, 2013, until payment in full.
Khalid maintains that his father neither knew of nor approved the transfers, insisting that the signatures appearing on the documents were forged.
“When the transfers were registered, the deceased (Arvind) was critically ill and receiving treatment in India. The transfers lack proper documentation, and the deceased had credit balances with Kavee Quarries Limited and Venus Metal Developers Limited which have not been paid to his estate,” he says in the court papers.
He further states that Hasmukh petitioned the court for a grant of probate in September 2013 and subsequently applied for its confirmation in September 2014.
However, Suraj and the five companies have challenged the suit, filing a preliminary objection seeking to have the entire proceedings struck out.
Through their lawyers, M/s Daly Inamdar Advocates, they argue that Justice Ngaah lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter, contending that the proceedings were improperly instituted through a miscellaneous civil application.
The court is yet to determine the preliminary objection and the substantive claims.
