https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12325

REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ANTI-CORRUPTION & ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION ACEC MISC. APPLICATION NO. **E006** OF 2026 ETHICS & ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION…………………..APPLICANT -VERSUS- LORNA KARAMUTA MUBICHI……………………….……1ST RESPONDENT KENNETH MURITHI NDUBI……..…………………………2ND RESPONDENT **RULING** When the applicant’s originating motion dated 26th January 2026 which was seeking preservation of funds held in the respondents’ joint investment account number CL18649 held in COOP Unit Trust Investment was placed before me on 26-01-2026 under certificate of urgency, I made the following observations; 1. There was no evidence that the respondent engaged in the contracts the applicant was alluding to. 2. The statements of bank accounts exhibited as ‘PC3(a)’ had nothing to show that the account belonged to the companies named as having traded with the County Government of Nakuru. 3. The amounts said to have been transferred to the respondents’ joint account had come from Windcom Solutions Limited owned by the 2nd respondent and one Brian Mwenda Ndubi whose relationship with the respondents had not been disclosed. 4. The account of Windcom Solutions Limited had not been linked to any transactions with the County Government as there were no credits from the government except some from Naivasha Sub-County Health and Rift Valley Provincial Hospital some of which were done before the 1st respondent joined the government. 5. There was nothing much to say about Murinchamba Investments Limited. Informed by the above and after observing that the applicant seemed to be withholding some information from the court, I reluctantly granted an order for preservation to last for four months. I also ordered the applicant to file a supplementary affidavit to fill in the gaps I had identified and fixed the matter for mention on 25-05-2026 for purposes of considering the progress of the investigations. When the matter came for mention on 4-06-2026, the applicant had filed a supplementary affidavit sworn by Getrude Sielei on 21-05-2026. The respondents had also filed a replying affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent on 2-06-2026. The court had not granted leave for the respondent to filed a replying and noting that applications under Section 56(3) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act are meant to be *ex-parte,* the said replying affidavit is improperly on record. My reasons for requiring a supplementary affidavit were not to hear the application *inter-parte* but to ensure that the court does not preserve the respondents’ funds without sufficient evidence while at the same time taking precautions to prevent dissipation of the funds in the event the gaps were inadvertent. In view of this, I expected the supplementary affidavit to disclose enough information to justify sustaining of the preservation orders for the period longer than provided by the law. In that regard, what I need to satisfy myself is whether the supplementary affidavit has addressed my concerns raised on 26-01-2026. In the supplementary affidavit, Getrude avers that, companies she identifies as Denken Building and Construction Limited, Windcom Solutions Limited and Murinchamba Investments Limited received payments from the County Government. She exhibits documents which show that Denken and Murinchamba are owned by the 2nd respondent only while Windcom is owned by the 2nd respondent and Brian Mwenda Ndubi. The latter are brothers. It is also deponed that certain County Government officers received monies which are suspected to be bribes, rewards and/or kickbacks between September 2020 and October 2025 from directors of the companies. These officials have been listed in paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit and are said to have been involved in processes which resulted to the three companies being awarded tenders. It is also deponed that the companies were involved in fraudulent activities by submitting forged documents to bid for and secure tenders and that several individuals have been interviewed and have denied any knowledge or dealing with the three companies. She added that the applicant required more time to examine and investigate the documents and record statements from more persons of interest. She concluded that there existed direct nexus between the funds the applicant seeks to preserve and the County Government. When Miss Biwott appeared before me on 4-06-2026, she pointed out the suspicious transactions and awards of tenders the applicant is interested in and stated that the applicant was midway with the investigations and that six months would be sufficient. Mr Kimathi for the respondents referred the court to the replying affidavit and added that there was no demonstration that the applicant needed more time. I wish to point out that there is no application before me asking for extension of preservation orders pursuant to Section 56(3) of Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act neither is there any application under Section 56(4) of the same Act seeking to set aside the prevailing preservation orders. In that regard, I will not consider submissions by the applicant for extension of the orders for a further period of six months or those by Mr. Kimathi as an application to set aside the orders in place. Having evaluated the supplementary affidavit, I am satisfied that the gaps I had identified on 26-0-206 have been sufficiently covered. The applicant has exhibited awards given to the companies in question and shown movements of money from their directors to persons alleged to be employees of the County Government. So as not to compromise any future proceedings in respect of the matter and since investigations are said to be in progress, I will not say much about the documents and evidence exhibited by the applicant in the supplementary affidavit. I must however express my complaint is that the applicant should have produced the information it has produced in the supplementary affidavit in its initial supporting affidavit. That way, the subsequent proceedings and this ruling would not have been necessary. Having said the above, I find that the applicant has justified granting of preservation orders under Section 56(3) of Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. I also note that had the applicant provided sufficient evidence and preservation orders issued under the said Section, the period of six months would have lapsed on 26-07-2026. I am also alive to the fact on 4-06-2026, the applicant was asked me to extend orders for six months but as I have stated earlier, there is no application to that effect. Putting the above in mind and the nature of the public interest in matters of corruption against the proprietary rights of the respondents, I exercise my discretion and issue the following orders; 1. The preservation orders issued by this court on 26-01-2026 are hereby extended for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling. 2. For avoidance of doubt, the preservation orders shall automatically lapse on 26-08-2026 unless otherwise ordered by the court. 3. There shall be no orders as to costs. Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this **29th** day of **July** 2026. **B.M. MUSYOKI** **JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT.** Ruling delivered in presence of Mr. Oira holding brief for Miss Biwott for the applicant and Mr. Kimathi for the respondent.