[2025] KEHC 6053 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent was not registered with the Law Society of Kenya and was managed by a person who is not an advocate, rendering its business illegal. The funds in the respondent's account were shown to have been obtained through fraudulent means, with no legitimate contracts to justify their...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6053 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Assets Recovery Agency; Respondent: Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous E018 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Preservation Orders
- Outcome
- Application for preservation orders granted.
- Judges
- BM Musyoki
- Legal Topics
- Proceeds of Crime, Preservation Orders, Money Laundering, Illegally Operating Law Firm
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Assets Recovery Agency
Applicant
Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Preservation Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether funds held in the respondent's bank account are proceeds of crime and liable to preservation under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent's business operations are illegal, thereby rendering any funds earned as proceeds of crime.
- 3 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for the grant of preservation orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent was not registered with the Law Society of Kenya and was managed by a person who is not an advocate, rendering its business illegal. The funds in the respondent's account were shown to have been obtained through fraudulent means, with no legitimate contracts to justify their source. The applicant established a prima facie case that the funds are proceeds of crime. Consequently, the court held that the statutory threshold for granting preservation orders under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act was met and granted the orders sought.
Court Disposition
Application for preservation orders granted.
Orders
- Funds in account number 03606206276150 held at I & M Bank in the name of the respondent are hereby preserved in terms of prayer 2 of the application.
- The preservation orders shall be gazetted as per Section 83(1) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Assets Recovery Agency v Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP (Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous E018 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 6053 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (13 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6053 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes
Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous E018 of 2025
BM Musyoki, J
May 13, 2025
Between
Assets Recovery Agency
Applicant
and
Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application dated 12/5/2025 seeks to preserve funds in account number 03606206276150 held at I & M bank in the name of the respondent on grounds that the same are proceeds of crime. The supporting affidavit of Martin Samburumo dated 12/5/2025 states that the funds were suspected to be proceeds of crime as they were obtained through fraudulent and forged documents.
2. The respondent is said to have been registered on 16/1/2025 as a business name and later converted to a limited liability partnership with its nature of business as litigation on tax issues. The manager of the firm one David Ironda Lumumba is not an advocate and the respondent is not registered with the Law Society of Kenya. In my mind, this alone is enough to justify granting of preservation orders as such business is illegal and any money earned from the same is obvious proceeds of crime.
3. Further the account is shown to have received several transfers and deposits whose source is also suspect as the contracts alleged to have been made to justify the sources of the funds do not exist.
4. Having analyzed the evidence tendered in the supporting affidavit, I am convinced that the orders for preservation are justified and I hereby grant the application in terms of prayer 2 thereof.
5. The orders shall be gazetted as per provisions of Section 83(1) of the Proceeds of Crimes and Anti Money Laundering Act and shall remain in force for the statutory period provided in Section 84 of the Act.
B. M. MUSYOKIJUDGE13/5/2025FURTHER ORDERFile is closed.B. M. MUSYOKIJUDGE13/5/2025