[2022] KEHC 15727 (KLR)

Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Njehia & another (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E033 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 15727 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (24 November 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15727 (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 E033 of 2022

EN Maina, J

November 24, 2022

Between

Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission

Plaintiff

and

Peter Maina Njehia

1st Defendant

Anthony Njehia

2nd Defendant

Ruling

1. Before me for ruling are two applications both brought by way of Notice of Motion. The first application which is the main application is dated 21st September, 2022. In that this court is urged to grant orders as follows:-“1. Spent.2. Spent.3. Spent.4. Spent.5. Spent.6. Spent.7. Spent.8. Spent9. Spent.10. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from selling, transferring, charging or further charging, leasing, developing, subdividing, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) alienating the following properties:SN0. Description Registered Owner Approx. Area Date of Reg/ transfer Approximate Value Kshs

1 Njoro/Ngata Block 11/466 (Egerton Workers) Peter Maina Njehia 0. 0457 Ha 21/09/2020 1,600,000. 00

2 Njoro/Ngata Block 11/467(Egerton Workers Peter Maina Njehia 0. 0457 Ha 21/09/2020 1,500,000. 00

3 Nakuru/Piave 2976 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 05/07/2011 800,000. 00

4 Nakuru/Piave 2977 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 05/07/2011 5,800,000. 00

5 Nakuru Municipality LR No.12573/58 IR No. 221397/1 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 082 Ha 03/12/2020 6,400,000. 00

6 Njoro/Njoro Block 9/204 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 1013 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

7 Njoro/ Njoro Block 9/205 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 1013 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

8 Njoro/Njoro Block 9/303 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 1006 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

9 Njoro/Njoro Block 9/308 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 0973 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

10 Dundori/ Lanet Block 11/1309 Muwa Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 10/06/2014 2,000,000. 00

11 Dundori/Lanet Block 11/1310 Muwa Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 10/06/2014 2,000,000. 00

12 Nakuru/ Piave 4853 (Egerton Housin) Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

13 Nakuru/ Piave 4854 (Egerton Housing Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

14 Nakuru/ Piave5108 (Egerton Housing Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

15 Nakuru/Piave 5109(Egerton Housing) Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

16 LR No. 27317/2 (Great wall Gardens Apartment Flat No. A123 Peter Maina Njehia

18/05/2016 4,500,000. 00

17 LR No. 27317/2 (Apartment Flat No. 2428 Peter Maina Njehia

09/06/2017 4,000,000. 00

18 LIR No. 27317/2 (Great wall Gardens Apartment Phase 111. Shop No. 02 Peter Maina Njehia

11/11/2017 3,500,000. 00

19 Nakuru Municipality Block 22/3524 Peter Maina Njehia

4/08/09

20 No. 12715/449 Great wall Apartments Phase 11 Flat No. A52 Peter Maina Njehia

12/06/2014 6,600,000. 00

21 LR No. 12581/14 (Great wall Gardens 11 Apartment Shop No. BSII) LR No. 236061/1 Peter Maina Njehia

30/04/2019 3,500,000. 00

22 Plot No. 8 Njoro Njoro Peter Maina Njehia

22/02/2010

23 Njoro/Ngata Block 1/3938 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 09 Ha 15/03/2013 5,300,000. 00

24 Nakuru/ Miti Mingi 231 Peter Maina Njehia 2. 024 Ha 30. 07. 2009 6,000,000. 00

25 Gilgil/Gilgil Block 1/11243 Kikobe PeterMaina Njehia 0. 43 Ha 27/11/2012

26 Gilgi1/Gilgil Block 1/11244 Kikobe Peter Maina Njehia 0. 43 Ha 27/11/2012

27 Kiambogo/ Kiambogo Block 2/18772 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 455 Ha 25/02/2014 2,000,000. 00

28 LR No.24840/74 IR No. 84126/1 Mlolongo Mavoko Municipal Council Peter Maina Njehia

2,400,000. 00

29 Title No. 34263 LR No. 4051/12 LR No. 2431/12 One 1 Plot Peter Maina Njehia

14/08/2017 450,000. 00

30 Title No. 34263 LR No. 4051/12 LR No. 2431/12 Two 2 Plots Peter Maina Njehia

30/03/2016 720,000. 000

31 Title No. 34263 LR No.4051/12 LR No.12431/12 Three 3 Plots Peter Maina Njehia

27/10/2020 1,700,000. 00

33 LR No. 27317/2 (Great wall Gardens Phase 1 Apartment Flat No. E321 Julie Hellen Matu

30/06/2016 4,500,000. 00

34 LR No. 27184/6 Njoro IR No. 125589 Julie Hellen Matu 0. 0465 Ha 09/02/2016

35. LR No. 12581/13 (Great wall Gardens Phase 3 Apartment Flat No. C 01 Antony Njehia Maina

5/03/2020 4,000,000. 001. Thatpending the hearing and determination of this suit this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from selling, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) aliena ting the following motor vehicles:S/NO. Registra tion No. Make Current owner Date of transfer registration Estimated Value

1. KCG 285Q Mazda Saloon Julie Hellen Matu 18/03/2016 2,100,000. 00

2. KCP317Z Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 27/03/2018 1,800,000. 00

3. KCD 575V Toyota M. Bus Peter Maina Njehia 13/07/2015 2,200,000. 00

4. KCF 902M Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 20/11/2015 2,200,000. 00

5. KCH549W Toyota M. Bus Peter Maina Njehia 03/08/2016 2,500,000. 00

6. KCM 208J Toyota Hilux D/Cab Peter Maina Njehia 2 4/07/2017 2,800,000. 00

7. KCV 762F Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 24/06/2019 3,300,000. 00

8. KIDA Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 03/12/2020 1,700,000. 00

9. KCM 068S Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 03/12/2020 800,000. 00

Total Value 19,400,000. 002. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with funds held in the following bank Accounts:S/NO. Bank A/C Name A/C Number Total Credits (Kshs)

1) Equity Peter Maina Njehia 03XXXX 32,644,448. 00

2) KCB Peter Maina Njehia 11XXXX / 04XXXX 38,559,901. 00

3) Equity Julie Hellen Matu 03XXXX 2,297,650. 85

4) BOA Julie Hellen Matu 08XXXX 2,394,222. 84

Total Deposits 75,896,222. 6913. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with funds held in the following mobile money(Mpesa) Accounts:S/No Subscriber Account Number Account Name Total Credits

1. Safaricom Ltd 07XXXX Peter Maina Njehia 10,114,590. 00

2. Safaricom Ltd 07XXXX Juliet Hellen Matu 4,442,050. 00

Total Credits 14,556,640. 001. Thatpending the hearing and determination of this suit this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with investment portfolios in form of shares and other deposits in savings and credit cooperative societies (SACCOS) as set out in the table below;Sacco Name Account Holder Description Of Contribution Credit Amount (Kshs

Stima Sacco limited Peter Maina Njehia Share Capital No. 80XXXX 13,557,385. 59

Alpha Deposit (A/c. No. 80XXXX 11,613,500. 00

Julie Hellen Matu Share Capital No. 80XXXX 9,120,000. 00

Alpha Deposit 80XXXX 2,100,000. 00

Vendor Account 5,266,686. 11

Unaitas Sacco Limited Peter Maina Njehia Unaitas Sacco Mununga 015XXXXX- Shares A/c old system 8,200,000. 00

Unaitas Sacco 10XXXX- Shares 10,000,000. 00

Unaitas Sacco 015XXXX Shares A/c Old System 7,000,000. 00

Julie Hellen Matu Unaitas Sacco 10XXXX- Shares A/c New System 7,000,000. 00

Less Sacco Contributions from Salaries and Benefits (7,708,797. 46)

Totals 66,148,784. 24 2. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/ or any other persons from selling, transferring, granting as security, offering as collateral, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with the following shares in listed Public Companies:S /No. Share Holder's Name Company Name Number of Shares Market Price Per Share Kshs Current Market Value Kshs

2. Njehia Peter Maina Kengen Ltd 1,186 Kshs. 4. 20 4,981. 20

Safaricom Plc 4,300 Kshs. 38. 70 166,410. 00

Total Market Value 171,391. 20

3. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/ or any other persons from selling, transferring, granting as security, offering as collateral, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with the following shares and / or investments in a limited Company:S/No Company Name Shares Type Original Shares Bonus Shares Total No. of SharesKshs Amount paid (Kshs)

1. FEP Holding Limited Tier 111 shares 8,800 17,600 26,400 420,000. 00

PPO Rights issue 39,600 0 39,600 594,000. 00

Totals 1,014,000. 004. That pending the hearing and determination of this suit the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from demanding the sum of Kshs. 1,020,000. 00 seized pursuant to a search conducted by the Commission in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E2450 of 2021. 18. Thatthe costs of this application be provided for.”

2. The application is premised on grounds that:-“1. The Commission pursuant to sections 55 of ACECA as read with section 11 (j) of the EACC Act is mandated to investigate a person suspected of corruption and require such a person to explain the disproportion between his/her assets and the known legitimate source(s) of income.

2. The Commission conducted investigations into allegations of unexplained wealth, unethical conduct, bribery and conflict of interest against Peter Maina Njehia, the 1st Defendant/ Respondent herein, who at the material time was a Senior Manager Supply Chain at the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (herein after 'KETRACO')

3. The Commission in the investigations sought to establish whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the 1st Respondent was engaged in corruption and economic crimes as alleged and further whether he had acquired and/or accumulated assets that were disproportionate to his known legitimate source(s) of income irrespective of whether the suspect assets were held by himself, associates and/ or relatives.

4. The Commission completed investigations and established that in the period between January 2010 and March 2021, (hereinafter 'the period of interest') the 1st Respondent exploited his official position of trust in the public service during his employ at KETRACO for private gain by involving himself in transactions that were in conflict with public interest.

5. During execution of search at the 1st Respondent premises in Nairobi, an amount of Kshs. 1, 020, 000. 00 in cash was seized from his motor vehicle. The source of the said cash could not be reasonably ascertained. He was also found in possession of tendering documents for Sieyuan Electric Company Limited which had been awarded the tender for 01karia-Lessos-Kisumu Transmission lines by KETRACO.

6. Investigations revealed that the said Sieyuan Electric Company Limited had in the period of interest deposited a total of Kshs. 3,000,000. 00 in two bank accounts belonging to the 1st Respondent's spouse, Julie Hellen Matu.

7. The 1st Respondent through his KCB bank account no. 1101758929 and M-Pesa 0722113763 also received Kshs.400,000. 00 and Kshs. 85,000. 00 respectively from Jooyato Surveys Limited and Jacob Oyato, a director of the said company respectively who had been awarded a contract by KETRACO to provide consulting services.

8. Investigations further established that in the Period of interest, the 1st Respondent gave false declaration of his assets during the routine Declaration of Assets, Income and Liabilities by public officers, contrary to the provisions of Section 26 of the Public Officer Ethics Act, No. 4 of 2003 and in addition, during the said period he had unsatisfactory tax declarations and / or payments.

9. In an effort to conceal the nature, source, disposition or movement of corruptly acquired funds investigations established that the 1st Respondent registered some of the assets acquired in the period of interest in the name of his associates namely Julie Hellen Matu (spouse) and Antony Njehia (son).

10. From the investigations the Commission established that, during the period of interest in which the 1st Respondent was reasonably suspected of corruption and economic crimes, he accumulated assets in landed properties, bank & mobile money(Mpesa) deposits, motor vehicles, shares in listed & private companies and investment portfolios and deposits in saving and credit Saccos which assets were disproportionate to his known legitimate sources of income amounting to Kshs. 237,806,769. 40 held in his name and those of his associates as set out below:Description Amount Kshs

Total approximate value of landed properties 88. 910,000. 00

Total approximate cost of Motor Vehicles 21,600,000. 00

Total bank deposits 76,407,232. 49

Total cash credited into M-pesa accounts 15,069,420. 00

Total Cash Recovered During Search 1,020,000. 00

Total Investment in SACCOS 73,857,581. 70

Investments in FEP Holdings 1,014,000. 00

Share Holding in Listed Companies 171,391. 20

Total Assets 278,049,625. 39

Less Income from legitimate known sources

Total Net Salary Income from January 2010 to March 2021 (35,764,757. 92)

Total Travel and Subsistence Allowances(Per diem . (4,478,098. 07)

Total Deductions 40,242,855. 99

Net Value of assets disproportion 237,806,769. 40

11. The Commission Pursuant to section 26 & 55 (2) of ACECA on 25th April, 2022 issued a Notice to the 1st Respondent to explain the disproportion in his assets with his known legitimate source(s) of income.

12. The Commission received responses from the 1st Respondent vide a letter dated 17th May 2022 which response was considered and after analysis a cumulative assets of value of Kshs. 21,432,587. 46 was found to have been satisfactorily explained leaving out an unexplained disproportion of Kshs 216,374,181. 94.

13. The Commission on 14th September 2022 issued a Demand Notice to the 1st Respondent to remit the above-unexplained wealth of Kshs. 216,374,181. 94.

14. The Commission pursuant to Section 55(2) of ACECA has instituted a suit (accompanying this Certificate & Application) seeking forfeiture of the above stated assets of Kshs. 216,374,181. 94 which were acquired at a time the 1st Respondent was reasonably suspected of corruption or economic crimes.

15. That in the alternative the Commission is seeking through the suit that where the said assets have been wasted or are otherwise unavailable for forfeiture, an order for payment of the assets' equivalent value in monetary terms to the Government of Kenya.

16. That the 1st Respondent has in the past engaged in schemes to conceal the illicit assets in family members, businesses fronts and corporate entities in an effort to distance the assets from their illegitimate source.

17. That it is therefore just and in the public interest to prohibit the Respondents their agents, servants and/or any other persons from transferring, alienating, disposing of, dissipating or otherwise wasting the suit properties pending the hearing and determination of this application and further pending the hearing and determination of the accompanying suit (Originating Summons) for forfeiture.”

3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Shadrack Mwenda sworn on 21st September, 2022. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions.

4. The second application is dated 24th October, 2022 and is supported by the affidavit of Pius Nyoike sworn on even date. The same seeks orders as follows:-“2. That the Honourable Court be pleased to review the orders issued on 21st October, 2022 allowing in the interim prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 21st September, 2022.

3. That the Honourable Court be pleased to allow in the interim prayer 3- 9 of the Notice of Motion dated 21st September, 2022.

4. That the costs of the application be in the course.”

5. The gist of the application is that it could not have been the intention of this court to grant only prayer 2 of the application leaving out the other prayers; that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and this court should therefore review its order granted on 21st October 2022 to allow the other prayers. It is instructive that the said “other prayers” are the subject of the main application.

The Response. 6. The Respondents opposed the main application through a relying affidavit sworn by Peter Maina Njehia, the 1st Respondent, on 19th October, 2022. On the main he deposes that his assets have been the subject of freezing orders for more than one year and granting the orders sought borders on infringement of his right to property and that he continues to suffer economically as a result of unconscionable suspicions that the Applicant has failed to prove. He has also deposed that the application is brought in bad faith, lacks merit and is an abuse of the court process. He has annexed various documents which he has urged this court to peruse when considering the application.

7. In answer to paragraphs 11-12 of the affidavit of Shadrack Mwendwa the 1st Respondent deposes as follows: -“(i)I am aware of the requirement to declare wealth for public officers(ii)I have always declared my wealth as per the requirements of the law. (see pages 10-13 of the annexure marked PN-1 for a copy of my latest wealth declaration form.)(iii)Further, I am up to date with my tax compliance. To this extent I have a tax compliance certificate contrary to the allegations by the Applicant. (See page 14 of the annexure marked PN-1 for a copy of my personal information and tax return filing details.)(iv)The burden of establishing if any part of my wealth was obtained through corrupt means lies squarely with the Applicant. The Applicant has not called evidence linking any of my assets with any corrupt conduct.(v)In specific response to the funds in the KCB Bank and Equity Bank accounts, I wish to state that the Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) is purely a salary account, while the Equity Bank Limited account had proceeds from my businesses including rent from my apartments and matatu business.(vi)Further, in response to the landed properties, I wish to state that part of the said investigation led the Respondent to Egerton Cosmopolitan Housing Cooperative Society Limited which wrote to the Respondent on 27th April, 2021 conveying information on how I acquired several pieces of land in Nakuru through share purchases over a period of more than 22 years.”

8. It is also his contention that the Applicant is not deserving of the orders sought in that it has not established any reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence may have been committed as that threshold can only be assessed from the cogency of evidence or information presented to the court. Secondly that injunctions and freezing orders ought not to be used to ground a person’s legitimate investment or affairs but should strictly be used to target ill-gotten property and further that a party cannot be allowed to casually walk into court with scanty information or evidence and seek to attach anything and everything belonging to a suspect based on a single suspicious transaction or deal.

9. In regard to the application dated 24th October, 2022 the Respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 8th November, 2022 which state:-“1. That the application is incompetent, ban in law and an abuse of the Honourable court’s process.

2. That Section 80 of the Civil Procedure and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules restrict the scope and jurisdiction for review. They limit review to:-

a.the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant tor could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made orb.on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, orc.For any other sufficient reason and whatever he ground there is a requirement that the application has to be made without unreasonable delay.3)That the Applicant has not established any of the grounds for review set out in Section 80 of the Civil Procedure and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure rules.4)That whereas it is now judicially settled that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, the Application as filed raises grounds of appeal as opposed to a review.5)That while exercising the power of review, the court concerned cannot sit in appeal over its own decision.6)That it is now settled principle stemming from the provisions of Order 45 of the civil Procedure Rules that a party seeking a review of a judgment or ruling should present the review application together with the relevant formal decree or order, Failure to do so is fatal. Notably the Applicant has not annexed the order sought to be reviewed. 7. That therefore, the aforesaid Notice of Motion lacks merit and as such an abuse of this Honourable Court’s process and should be dismissed with costs.”

10. Whereas the application dated 24th October, 2022 was argued orally before me on 9th November, 2022 the main application was canvassed by way of written submissions.

11. I have considered the two applications, the grounds thereof as stated on their faces and supporting affidavits, the responses of the Respondent, the rival submissions, the cases cited and the law.

12. What is sought by the Applicant is a temporary injunction to restrain the Respondents from alienating the properties that are the subject of this suit pending hearing and determination of the suit. A temporary injunction is issued for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the suit property. (See Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.)

13. The principles for grant of a temporary injunction are well settled and there is now a long line of cases including the case of Giella v Cassman Brown Ltd (1973) EA 355. The principles are that to succeed, the Applicant must demonstrate that it has a prima facie case with a likelihood of success; that unless the orders are granted it is likely to suffer irreparable harm which cannot be compensated by an award of damages. Short of that the applicant must demonstrate that the balance of convenience tilts in its favour.

14. In the case of Mrao v First American Bank Limited & 2 others [2003] eKLR the court defined a prima facie case as one “in which on the material presented to the court a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal form the latter.” On the other hand in respect of irreparable loss it has been held as follows:-“.... An injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy or the injury or harm is of such a nature that monetary compensation, of whatever amount, will never be adequate remedy.” -See the case of Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others [2014] eKLR.

15. As regards the balance of convenience it was held in the case of Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] eKLR to be:-“The meaning of balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff is that if an injunction is not granted and the suit is ultimately decided in favour of the Plaintiffs the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff would be greater than that which would be caused to the defendants if an injunction is granted but the suit is ultimately dismissed. Although it is called balance of convenience it is really the balance of inconvenience and it is for the plaintiffs to show that the inconvenience caused to them would be greater than that which may be caused to the defendants. Should the inconvenience be equal, it is the plaintiffs who suffer. In other words, the plaintiffs have to show that the comparative mischief from the inconvenience which is likely to arise from withholding the injunction will be greater than which is likely to arise from granting it.

16. The Applicant’s case against the Respondents seems to me to have passed the investigations stage as a suit has already been filed. It is alleged that the properties sought to be preserved by way of a temporary injunction were acquired at a time the Respondents were reasonably suspected of corruption or economic crimes. The suit is one premised on Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption & Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) which provides for forfeiture of unexplained assets. Should the Plaintiff/Applicant adduce evidence that the suit properties are unexplained assets as required by Section 55(4)(a) of the Act the burden of proof would shift to the Respondents to explain that the properties were acquired otherwise than through corrupt conduct (See section 55(5) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.) It is my finding therefore that applying the principles of Giella v Cassman Brown (supra) and the definition of a prima facie case in the case of Mrao vs First American Bank Limited & 2 others (supra) the Applicant has demonstrated that it has a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. I further find that whereas it may be argued that damages would be an adequate remedy, the nature of this case is one where were the suit assets to dissipate an award for damages would not be adequate compensation. The balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the applicant as the impugned assets are alleged to have been acquired from public funds and the public interest would be such that the assets are preserved pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

17. Accordingly the application dated 21st September, 2022 is allowed and orders 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are granted as follows: -1. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from selling, transferring, charging or further charging, leasing, developing, subdividing, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) alienating the following properties pending the hearing and determination of this suit:S/NO. Description Registered Owner Approx. Area Date of Reg/ transfer Approximate Value Kshs

1 Njoro/Ngata Block 11/466 (Egerton Workers Peter Maina Njehia 0. 0457 Ha 21/09/2020 1,600,000. 00

2 Njoro/Ngata Block 11/467 (Egerton Workers Peter Maina Njehia 0. 0457 Ha 21/09/2020 1,500,000. 00

3 Nakuru/ Piave 2976 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 05/07/2011 800,000. 00

4 Nakuru/Piave 2977 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 05/07/2011 5,800,000. 00

5 Nakuru Municipality LR No. 12573/58 IR No. 221397/1 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 082 Ha 03/12/2020 6,400,000. 00

6 Njoro/Njoro Block 9/204 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 1013 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

7 Njoro/ Njoro Block 9/205 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 1013 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

8 Njoro/ Njoro Block 9/303 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 1006 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

9 Njoro/ Njoro Block 9/308 Egerton Peter Maina Njehia 0. 0973 Ha 09/11/2018 1,500,000. 00

10 Dundori/ Lanet Block 11/1309 Muwa Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 10/06/2014 2,000,000. 00

11 Dundori/ Lanet Block 11/1310 Muwa Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 10/06/2014 2,000,000. 00

12 Nakuru/ Piave 4853 (Egerton Housing Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

13 Nakuru/ Piave 4854 (Egerton Housing Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

14 Nakuru/ Piave 5108 (Egerton Housing Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

15 Nakuru/Piave 5109(Egerton Housing Peter Maina Njehia 0. 100 Ha 04/06/2019 800,000. 00

16 LR No. 27317/2 (Great wall Gardens Apartment Flat No. A123 Peter Maina Njehia

18/05/2016 4,500,000. 00

17 LR No. 27317/2 (Apartment Flat No. 2428 Peter Maina Njehia

09/06/2017 4,000,000. 00

18 LIR No. 27317/2 (Great wall Gardens Apartment Phase 111. Shop No. 02 Peter Maina Njehia

11/11/2017 3,500,000. 00

19 Nakuru Municipality Block 22/3524 Peter Maina Njehia

4/08/09

20 No. 12715/449 Great wall Apartments Phase 11 Flat No. A52 Peter Maina Njehia

12/06/2014 6,600,000. 00

21 LR No. 12581/14 (Great wall Gardens 11 Apartment Shop No. BSII) IR No. 236061/1 Peter Maina Njehia

30/04/2019 3,500,000. 00

22 Plot No. 8 Njoro Njoro Peter Maina Njehia

22/02/2010

23 Njoro/NgataBlock 1/3938 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 09 Ha 15/03/2013 5,300,000. 00

24 Nakuru/ Miti Mingi 231 Peter Maina Njehia 2. 024 Ha 30. 07. 2009 6,000,000. 00

25 Gilgil/Gilgil Block 1/11243 Kikoe Peter Maina Njehia 0. 43 Ha 27/11/2012

26 Gilgil/ Block 1/11244 Kikoe Peter Maina Njehia 0. 43 Ha 27/11/2012

27 Kiambogo/ Kiam bogo Block 2/18772 Peter Maina Njehia 0. 455 Ha 25/02/2014 2,000,000. 00

28 LIR No.24840/74 IR No. 84126/1 Mlologno Mavoko Municipal Council Peter Maina Njehia

2,400,000. 00

29 Title No. 34263 IR No. 34051/12 LR No. 12431/12 One 1 Plot Peter Maina Njehia

14/08/2017 450,000. 00

30 Title No. 34263 IR No. 34051/12 LR No. 12431/12 Two 2 Plots Peter Maina Njehia

30/03/2016 720,000. 000

31 Title No. 34263 IR No. 34051/12 LR No. 12431/12 Three 3 Plots Peter Maina Njehia

27/10/2020 1,700,000. 00

33 LR No. 27317/2 (Great wall Gardens Phase 1 Apartment Flat No. E321 Julie Hellen Matu

30/06/2016 4,500,000. 00

34 LR No. 27184/6 Njoro IR No. 125589 Julie Hellen Matu 0. 0465 Ha 09/02/2016

35. LR No. 12581/13 (Great wall Gardens Phase 3 Apartment Flat No. C 01 Antony Njehia Maina

5/03/2020 4,000,000. 002. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from selling, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) alienating the following motor vehicles pending the hearing and determination of this suit:S/N O. Registra tion No. Make Current owner Date of transfer registration Estimated Value

1. KCG 285Q Mazda Saloon Julie Hellen Matu 18/03/2016 2,100,000. 00

2. KCP 317Z Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 27/03/2018 1,800,000. 00

3. KCD 575V Toyota M. Bus Peter Maina Njehia 13/07/2015 2,200,000. 00

4. KCF 902M Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 20/11/2015 2,200,000. 00

5. KCH 549W Toyota M. Bus Peter Maina Njehia 03/08/2016 2,500,000. 00

6. KCM 208J Toyota Hilux D/Cab Peter Maina Njehia 24/07/2017 2,800,000. 00

KCV 762F Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 24/06/2019 3,300,000. 00

8. KIDA Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 03/12/2020 1,700,000. 00

9. KCM 068S Toyota Hiace Peter Maina Njehia 03/12/2020 800,000. 00

Total Value 194,400,000. 003. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with funds held in the following bank Accounts pending the hearing and determination of this suit:SINO. Bank A/C Name A/C Number Total Credits (Kshs)

1) Equity Peter Maina Njehia 03XXXX 32,644,448. 00

2) KCB Peter Maina Njehia 11XXXX/ 04XXXX 38,559,901. 00

3) Equity Julie Hellen Matu 03XXXX 2,297,650. 85

4 BOA Julie Hellen Matu 08XXXX 2,394,222. 84

Total Deposits 75,896,222. 694. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with funds held in the following mobile money(Mpesa) Accounts pending the hearing and determination of this suit:S/No Subscriber Account Number Account Name Total Credits

1. Safaricom Ltd 07XXXX Peter Maina Njehia 10,114,590. 00

1. Ltd 07XXXX Juliet Hellen Matu 4,442,050. 00

Total Credits 14,556,640. 005. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with investment portfolios in form of shares and other deposits in savings and credit cooperative societies (SACCOS) as set out in the table below pending the hearing and determination of this suit;Sacco Name Account Holder Description Of Contribution Credit Amount (Kshs

Stima Sacco limited PeterMaina Njehia Share Capital No. 80XXXX 13,557,385. 59

Alpha Deposit (A/c. No. 80XXXX 11,613,500. 00

Julie Hellen Matu Share Capital No.80XXXX 9,120,000. 00

Alpha Deposit 80XXXX 2,100,000. 00

Vendor Account 5,266,686. 11

Unaitas Sacco Limited Peter Maina Njehia Unaitas Sacco Mununga 01XXXX- Shares A/c old system 8,200,000. 00

Unaitas Sacco 10XXXX- Shares 10,000,000. 00

Unaitas Sacco 01XXXXShares A/c Old System 7,000,000. 00

Julie Hellen Matu Unaitas Sacco 10XXXX- Shares A/c New System 7,000,000. 00

Less Sacco Contributions from Salaries and Benefits (7,708,797. 46)

Totals 66,148,784. 246. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/ or any other persons from selling, transferring, granting as security, offering as collateral, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with the following shares in listed Public Companies pending the hearing and determination of this suit:S /No. Share Holder's Name Company Name Number of Shares Market Price Per Share Kshs Current Market Value Kshs

2. Njehia Peter Maina Kengen Ltd 1,186 Kshs. 4. 20 4,981. 20

Safaricom Plc 4,300 Kshs. 38. 70 166,410. 00

Total Market Value 171,391. 207. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/ or any other persons from selling, transferring, granting as security, offering as collateral, disposing, wasting, or in any other way (howsoever described) dealing with the following shares and / or investments in a limited Company pending the hearing and determination of this suit:S/No Company Name Shares Type Original Shares Bonus Shares Total No. of SharesKshs Amount paid (Kshs)

1. FEP Holding Limited Tier 111 shares 8,800 17,600 26,400 420,000. 00

PPO Rights issue 39,600 0 39,600 594,000. 00

Totals 1,014,000. 008. That an order of injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents, their agents, servants and/or any other persons from demanding the sum of Kshs. 1,020,000. 00 seized pursuant to a search conducted by the Commission in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E2450 of 2021 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.”

18. The application dated 24th October, 2022 is subsumed in the main motion and accordingly no orders shall issue on the same.

19. The costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Orders accordingly.SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022E N MAINAJUDGE