[2018] KEELC 3375 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3375 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements under section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act by demonstrating the need to preserve the subject property pending investigations. The absence of opposition from the respondents and the statutory mandate to prevent dissipation of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3375 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC); Respondent: Samuel Kimathi; Respondent: Daniel Kithinka Rukunga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Prohibitory Orders
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Prohibitory Orders, Asset Freeze, Public Land Disputes, Anti Corruption Proceedings
Source Language
en
Land and Property Administrative Law Prohibitory Orders Asset Freeze Public Land Disputes Anti Corruption Proceedings

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC)

Applicant

Samuel Kimathi

Respondent

Daniel Kithinka Rukunga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Prohibitory Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court should issue prohibitory orders restraining the respondents from dealing with parcel Meru Block 1/319 under section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has met the statutory threshold for the grant of prohibitory orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements under section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act by demonstrating the need to preserve the subject property pending investigations. The absence of opposition from the respondents and the statutory mandate to prevent dissipation of assets suspected to be proceeds of corruption justified the issuance of prohibitory orders. Accordingly, the court granted the orders sought, restraining the respondents and their agents from transferring, charging, or otherwise dealing with Meru Block No. 1/319, Milimani Estate, for a period of six months.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • An order is issued prohibiting the respondents, their servants, agents or any other persons from transferring, charging or in any other manner dealing with parcel of land known as Meru Block No. 1/319, Milimani Estate, for a period of six months.