[2023] KEHC 1965 (KLR)

[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
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Administrative Law Freezing Orders Injunctive Relief Proceeds of Crime Judicial Discretion Public Interest +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

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)

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant should be granted partial access to the frozen bank account for the amount exceeding the Plaintiff's claim.
  2. 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.