[2023] KEHC 1965 (KLR)
The court found that although there is a difference between the amount in the frozen account and the Plaintiff's claim, it would be premature to release the excess funds to the 1st Defendant before the suit is determined, as interest and costs may also be awarded. The Plaintiff's assertion that the excess may be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 1965 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission; Defendant: Amailo Investment Company Ltd; Defendant: Mathew Kipchumba Kipkemei; Defendant: Grace Murei; Defendant: Samuel Eregae; Defendant: James Arono Chegem; Defendant: Esther Lokai Elim; Defendant: Elim Peter Epagan; Defendant: Peter Ekorot Endapal
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E025 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications (variation of Freezing Order and Temporary Injunction)
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction granted; 1st Defendant's application for partial access to frozen funds declined.
- Judges
- EN Maina
- Legal Topics
- Freezing Orders, Injunctive Relief, Proceeds of Crime, Judicial Discretion, Public Interest, Bank Account Preservation
- 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
Amailo Investment Company Ltd
Defendant
Mathew Kipchumba Kipkemei
Defendant
Grace Murei
Defendant
Samuel Eregae
Defendant
James Arono Chegem
Defendant
Esther Lokai Elim
Defendant
Elim Peter Epagan
Defendant
Peter Ekorot Endapal
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Anti Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications (variation of Freezing Order and Temporary Injunction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Defendant should be granted partial access to the frozen bank account for the amount exceeding the Plaintiff's claim.
- 2 Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the Defendants from dealing with the funds in the account pending determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there is a difference between the amount in the frozen account and the Plaintiff's claim, it would be premature to release the excess funds to the 1st Defendant before the suit is determined, as interest and costs may also be awarded. The Plaintiff's assertion that the excess may be proceeds of crime, while speculative, cannot be dismissed outright pending investigations. The balance of convenience and public interest favor maintaining the freeze to prevent dissipation of funds that may be public property. The Plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction is granted, and the 1st Defendant's application for partial access is declined. The hearing of the...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction granted; 1st Defendant's application for partial access to frozen funds declined.
Orders
- Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 16th December 2022 for a temporary injunction is granted in terms of prayer 3.
- 1st Defendant's application dated 25th November 2022 for variation of the freezing order is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Amailo Investment Company Ltd & 7 others (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E025 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 1965 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (9 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 1965 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes
Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E025 of 2022
EN Maina, J
March 9, 2023
Between
Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission
Plaintiff
and
Amailo Investment Company Ltd
1st Defendant
Mathew Kipchumba Kipkemei
2nd Defendant
Grace Murei
3rd Defendant
Samuel Eregae
4th Defendant
James Arono Chegem
5th Defendant
Esther Lokai Elim
6th Defendant
Elim Peter Epagan
7th Defendant
Peter Ekorot Endapal
8th Defendant
Ruling
1. This ruling relates to two applications both brought by way of Notice of Motion. The first is the 1st Defendant’s application dated 25th November 2022 seeking an order for variation of the orders made by this court on 14th July 2022 so as to allow the 1st Defendant partial access to the frozen bank Account No. 0990260776292 to draw a sum of Ksh 11,187,155. 31. The gist of the application is that the amount in the frozen account exceeds the sum claimed in the Plaint by the sum of Ksh 11,187,155. 31 and that there is no justification to continue holding the excess funds as they do not form part of the claim. This application is brought under Articles 23, 24, 31, 40, 50 and 165 of the Constitution, Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of theCivil Procedure Rules.
2. The second application is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 16th December 2012 which seeks a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from withdrawing, transferring, disposing or in any other way dealing with the funds held in the account until this suit is heard and determined. The application is expressed to be brought under Order 40(1), 51(1) of theCivil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Both applications were canvased by way of written submissions.
4. I have carefully considered the two applications, the grounds on their faces, the affidavits in support and in reply, the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, the cases cited and the law. Whether or not to grant the orders sought in the two applications are in the discretion of the court and as is always the case, the discretion must be exercised judicially. In respect to the application by the 1st Defendant it is indeed correct that there is a difference of Ksh 11. 187,155. 31 between what is in the preserved account and what is claimed in this case. The Plaintiff’s claim that even that sum may be proceeds of crime is in my view just speculation as investigations are yet to be conducted to determine that. Be that as it may, it is my finding that it would be premature to release those funds to the 1st Defendant given that apart from the principal sum there shall, should the suit succeed, be an element of interest and costs. Rather than release those funds at this point my considered view is that the hearing of this suit ought to be expedited so that in the event that the suit does not succeed then the funds in the account are released to the Defendant(s) at once. It shall be so ordered.
5. As for the application for a temporary injunction, it is my finding that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Plaintiff because in the event that the funds dissipate and the suit succeeds the Plaintiff would then have to go to great lengths, at tax payers expense, to recover the decretal sum from the Defendants. It would also not serve public interest to release funds which are alleged to be public funds acquired through corruption. The Plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction in terms of prayer 3 of the Notice of Motion dated 16th December, 2022 is therefore granted.
6. The costs in both applications shall be costs in the cause.Orders accordingly.
SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2023. E N MAINAJUDGE