https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4374

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KISUMU** **ELCL MISC CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E046 OF 2025** IN THE MATTER OF: THE ANTI-CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES ACT NO. 3 OF 2003 AND IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION BY THE ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION FOR AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 56(1) OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES ACT NO. 3 OF 2003 TO PROHIBIT DEALINGS WITH PARCEL NUMBER EAST KISUMU/DAGO/652. ETHICS & ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION (EACC) .. APPLICANT VERSUS CHRISTOPHER MUGA CHIKA (sued as the Administrator of the Estate Of GLADYS CHIKA ……. RESPONDENT **RULING** This ruling relates to the *ex parte* Originating Motion brought by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) against Christopher Muga Chika as administrator of the estate of Glady Chika pursuant to the provisions of Section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No.3 of 2003. The application sought an order prohibiting the Respondent, by himself, his servants, employees, agents, or through any other person, from dealing by way of sale, transfer, mortgage, development, or in any other manner whatsoever with all that parcel of land known as EAST KISUMU/DAGO/652 for a period of six (6) months. The grounds of the application, as contained in the Supporting Affidavit of Lameck Okun, sworn on behalf of the Applicant on 1st September, 2025, are that the Applicant received a complaint concerning alleged grabbing, pending eviction, and demolition of buildings belonging to Ramogi Institute of Advanced Technology (RIAT), a public body/entity. That the preliminary investigations reveal, *inter alia,* that the suit property No. EAST KISUMU/DAGO/652 forms part of the compound of Ramogi Institute of Advanced Technology, and it is where the Administration Block for the institution stands. That, sometimes in February 2012, the Land Registrar, Kisumu, revoked several titles, including the Certificate of Lease issued in respect of the suit property on the grounds that the suit property belongs to Ramogi Institute of Advanced Technology. That following the cancellation of the Certificate of Lease in respect of the suit property, Gladys Chika filed and successfully prosecuted a Constitutional Petition challenging the cancellation of the Certificate of Lease in respect of the suit land. That subsequently, a decree was issued in favour of the Petitioner. That on the strength of the judgment and decree issued in the petition, the Respondent is planning to evict the public entity from the suit property, demolish the structures erected thereon, and re-survey the land for succession purposes. That the issue of legality or otherwise of the process that led to the acquisition of the suit property by the estate of Gladys Chika, which the Respondent herein represents, has never been heard and determined by any competent court, and that, as such, the same is still open for hearing and determination by the court. That subject to the outcome of the investigations being conducted by the Applicant, the Applicant intends to recover the suit property and revert it to the public. That, unless restrained by orders sought herein, the Respondent may deal with the suit property in a manner prejudicial to the outcome of the ongoing investigations. That it is in the public interest that the orders sought be granted. That the Applicant was not aware of the Petition filed by Gladys Chika and only became aware of the same through the ongoing investigations. That the Applicant already commenced the investigations into the circumstances under which the suit property was transferred to Mrs. Gladys Chika after having been acquired by the Institute. The record shows that when the application came up before court on 1st September, 2025 under certificate of urgency, the court found that no urgency had been disclosed in the application as the issues said to constitute the urgency arose from proceedings which had been ongoing since 2017 and that the judgement delivered on 24th January, 2018 in KISUMU ELC PETITION NO.3 OF 2017 did not order the eviction of Ramogi Institute of Advanced Technology from the disputed property or the demolition of its structures. Further, when the application came up for hearing on 22nd October, 2025, the Applicant sought to file written submissions. The record shows that the Applicant filed written submissions dated 8th December, 2025. Counsel submitted on behalf of the Applicant that under Section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act No.3 of 2003 (ACECA), an application for preservation of property suspected of having been acquired through corrupt conduct is granted *ex parte* within the first instance. That in the present case, the court declined to grant the orders sought and directed the Applicant to submit on the legal propriety of the orders sought, given the existence of a judgment and decree issued in favour of the estate of Gladys Chika comprised in the suit property. Counsel submitted that the issues raised in the suit largely touched on the want of due process of law in revoking and cancelling the title which had been issued to the Petitioner in respect of the suit property. That such weighty issues of law could only be determined in a Civil suit and not the Constitutional Petition as filed by Gladys Chika. That the decision in the petition therefore turned on want of procedure and is akin to a decision made in Judicial Review Proceedings, which decision does not determine the rights of the parties on their merits. That the Applicant was not a party to the proceedings in the petition. Counsel relied on the case of *Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others -vs- Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014]eKLR* on the doctrine of *res judicata.* Counsel further submitted that the Orders of preservation sought ought to be granted to avoid dissipation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the investigations. I have considered the application, Supporting Affidavit, and submissions made. Section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, pursuant to which the application was brought, provides that: “On an ex parte application by the Commission, the High Court may make an order prohibiting the transfer, disposal of, or other dealings with the property if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property was acquired as a result of corrupt conduct.” The law requires that the court be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property was acquired as a result of corrupt conduct. Taking into account the fact that the subject property land had been the subject of a determined court case, the court was hesitant to grant the orders sought at the first instance and ordered that the application be heard. Vide the judgement in the Petition NO.3 of 2017, the court found and declared that the land belonged to Gladys Chika who was the Petitioner therein and whose estate is the Respondent herein, the court proceeded to declare cancellation of her title null, void and unconstitutional, reinstated her as the registered proprietor of the suit land and directed that any of the Respondents who may be interested in acquiring the land should follow the process laid down by law. There has been no indication that the said judgment has been varied or set aside. There is also no evidence that the estate of the Respondent is taking any steps to dissipate the property. What the Applicant seeks is that the property be preserved for 6 months from the date of the application to enable and to complete the investigations. Because of the need to file submissions and the elevation of the trial court to the Court of Appeal, the application has been pending in court for about 11 months now. There is no evidence of the current status of the suit property or the status of the investigations which had already been commenced as at the time of filing the application. I find that no reasonable grounds have been demonstrated to allow the application. The application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Orders accordingly. **Ruling dated and signed at Kisumu, read this 9th day of July, 2026, virtually, through Microsoft Teams online application.** **E. ASATI,** **JUDGE.** **In the presence of** Atika - Court Assistant Omari - for the Applicant. No appearance for the Respondent.