[2024] KEHC 9 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 9 (KLR)

The court held that once the Applicant voluntarily withdrew the forfeiture suit, the logical and legal consequence was that the preservation orders freezing the Respondents' bank accounts could no longer be sustained. The Applicant could not, after withdrawal, oppose the release of the funds, as there were no longer...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 9 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Assets Recovery Agency; Respondent: Flutterwave Payments Technology Ltd; Respondent: Hupez Solutions; Respondent: Adguru Technologies Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E044 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit / Ruling on Applications for Unfreezing of Accounts After Withdrawal of Forfeiture Suit
Outcome
Applications for unfreezing of accounts allowed; preservation orders discharged; funds to be released to Respondents.
Judges
NW Sifuna
Legal Topics
Asset Forfeiture, Money Laundering Proceeds, Withdrawal of Suit, Preservation Orders
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Asset Forfeiture Money Laundering Proceeds Withdrawal of Suit Preservation Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assets Recovery Agency

Applicant

Flutterwave Payments Technology Ltd

Respondent

Hupez Solutions

Respondent

Adguru Technologies Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit / Ruling on Applications for Unfreezing of Accounts After Withdrawal of Forfeiture Suit

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents are entitled to the release of funds previously frozen under preservation orders after the Applicant withdrew the forfeiture suit.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant can oppose the release of funds after voluntarily withdrawing the forfeiture proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once the Applicant voluntarily withdrew the forfeiture suit, the logical and legal consequence was that the preservation orders freezing the Respondents' bank accounts could no longer be sustained. The Applicant could not, after withdrawal, oppose the release of the funds, as there were no longer any substantive proceedings justifying their continued restraint. The court found the Applicant's opposition to be an abuse of process and dismissed it, ordering the immediate discharge of the preservation orders and release of the funds to the Respondents, unless subject to other valid orders from a different proceeding.

Court Disposition

Applications for unfreezing of accounts allowed; preservation orders discharged; funds to be released to Respondents.

Orders

  • Preservation/freeze orders issued on 19th August 2022 are discharged.
  • Funds previously frozen to be released to the Respondents forthwith, unless subject to other preservation/freeze orders.