Nairobi — The former owner of a tourist hotel bombed seven years ago now wants the court to determine who is in control of the establishment pending the determination of a legal dispute in court.

Paradise Beach Resort is currently in the hands of strangers, the High Court in Mombasa heard on Monday.

But the proprietor, Mr Sulami Yehuda, has been sued by another company ADM Limited for a breach of contract he signed to rebuild and renovate the hotel following the attack in November 28, 2002.

Others used include Musumarini Limited, Paradise Mombasa, Holiday Owners, Free Holiday Limited, Mr Hannan Adini, Ms Catherine Mwihaki and Mr Yosef Guzi.

ADM which is represented by Nelson Havi also sued them for selling the hotel units to unsuspecting holiday goers in Israel, but in August 2009, the High Court delivered a Sh500 million judgment in favour of the company, which has since been challenged by the defendants.

When the matter was mentioned yesterday before Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, Mr Havi said that the defendants were attempting to sneak in a consent agreement allegedly signed by one of the ADM directors and Mr Sulami withdrawing the suit and setting aside the Sh500 million judgment delivered by Justice Joseph Sergon.

The attempt was however thwarted after it emerged that the director, Mr Ofri Arie had been fired from the company following a fallout with his co-directors and therefore did not have any authority to make decisions in the matter, or appoint an advocate to represent him in the matter.

The court was told that Mr Arie had appointed another advocate Mr Apollo Muinde, to replace Mr Havi without the consent of the other two directors who are based in Israel.

"The defendants coerced Mr Arie to sign the illegal agreement for withdrawal of the suit, and they now want the new advocate to replace me so that he can endorse it," he said.

The judge however ordered Mr Arie to personally file an affidavit in reply to the allegations raised against him, noting that the lawyer he had appointed could not reply to the contentious issues raised.

"It is not wise for advocates to get into client's disputes," he noted.

The case will be heard on November 18, 2009.