Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Akivaga & another (Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous E022 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7691 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (5 June 2026) (Ruling)
The court found that the supporting affidavit and the facts presented disclosed a sufficient basis to invoke section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. Because the applicant had shown a need to preserve the identified funds to complete ongoing investigations, the court granted the prohibitory orders...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 7691 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission; 1st Respondent: Partrick Analoh Akivaga; 2nd Respondent: Damaris Sindavi Kayugira
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous E022 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Urgent Interlocutory Application Under Section 56 of ACECA
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part by granting preservation orders.
- Judges
- ["REA Ougo"]
- Legal Topics
- Preservation of Property, Investigative Freezing Orders, Unexplained Assets, Conflict of Interest, Abuse of Office, Bribery, Jurisdiction Under Section 56 of the Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
- 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
Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission
Plaintiff
Partrick Analoh Akivaga
1st Respondent
Damaris Sindavi Kayugira
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Urgent Interlocutory Application Under Section 56 of ACECA
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant prohibitory orders restraining the respondents from dealing with the identified funds pending completion of investigations.
- 2 Whether the applicant established a sufficient basis under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act to justify preservation orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the supporting affidavit and the facts presented disclosed a sufficient basis to invoke section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. Because the applicant had shown a need to preserve the identified funds to complete ongoing investigations, the court granted the prohibitory orders sought.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part by granting preservation orders.
Orders
- Prayers 2(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and 3 of the application were granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Akivaga & another (Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous E022 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7691 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (5 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7691 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Miscellaneous E022 of 2026 REA Ougo, J June 5, 2026 Between Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission Plaintiff and Partrick Analoh Akivaga 1st Respondent Damaris Sindavi Kayugira 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before me is a certificate of urgency dated 5/6/2026 and an originating motion brought under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003. The application is premised on the grounds set out in the body of the application and is supported by the annexed supporting affidavit of Catherine Ngari an Investigator with EACC. 2.The application seeks an order prohibiting the respondents, their agents, servants or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing of, or in any other way dealing with funds listed in paragraph 2(1) to (iv) to enable it to complete its investigations. 3.The applicant has averred that it had undertaken an inquiry into allegations of conflict of interest, abuse of office, bribes and possession of unexplained assets against the Respondents. 4.That upon preliminary investigations it conducted, it revealed that the 1st respondent is a Public Officer employed by Nairobi County Government and that the 2nd respondent is a Public Officer employed by Vihiga County Government. The respondents are spouses and business partners and directors of companies that trade with Vihiga County Government. They have accumulated immense assets disproportionate to their legitimate sources of income, which are held in the accounts stated in paragraph 2(i) to (iv). 5.That a search was conducted at the respondent’s premises, which led to the seizure of Kshs. 65 million, and that, as a result, they need the orders sought to complete their investigations. 6.I have considered the application and the provisions of Order 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, which delegate jurisdiction to make the orders sought in the application. On the basis of the facts as stated in the supporting affidavit, I am satisfied that there is a need to grant the orders sought herein. Prayers 2(1), (ii), (iii), (iv), and 3 of the application are hereby granted. It is so ordered. R E OUGOJUDGE5/6/2026