Court declines bid by top gov't officials and businessman Jayesh Saini to exit multi-million software case

In a ruling delivered on June 25, 2026, the court held that the suit raises serious triable issues that can only be determined through a full hearing and not at the preliminary stage.

The first application had been filed by the Principal Secretary at the National Treasury, the Head of Public Service and the Attorney General, who argued that the plaintiffs had failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against them. They maintained that they had been improperly joined in the proceedings and that the suit was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

Jayesh Saini, the fourth defendant, also sought to be removed from the case, arguing that he had no contractual relationship or direct communication with the plaintiffs and therefore could not be held liable. He further 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 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.

The court observed that the plaintiffs further claimed that meetings involving the National Treasury, the Head of Public Service and Jayesh Saini were held to discuss financing of the software project and that funding was to come from the National Treasury's confidential vote.

The judge ruled that whether those allegations are true 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 tasked with financing the project, participated in meetings and made representations regarding funding and implementation of the software project.

The court said those allegations, if ultimately proved, 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 and ruled that all the defendants will remain parties to the suit.