[2007] KEHC 581 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence, through affidavits and supporting documents, to meet the threshold required under section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act for the grant of a prohibitory order. The court relied on its previous reasoning in a similar application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 581 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission; Respondent: Tairo Investments Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 19 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Originating Motion for Prohibitory Order
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Anti Corruption Orders, Asset Freezing, Ex Parte Applications
- 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
Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission
Applicant
Tairo Investments Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Originating Motion for Prohibitory Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to justify a prohibitory order under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
- 2 Whether the property in question was acquired as a result of corrupt conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence, through affidavits and supporting documents, to meet the threshold required under section 56(1) of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act for the grant of a prohibitory order. The court relied on its previous reasoning in a similar application involving related property and determined that, in the absence of any contrary evidence or argument from the respondent (the application being ex parte), the order sought should be granted to preserve the property pending further proceedings.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- A prohibitory order is granted prohibiting the transfer or other dealings with property known as L.R. NO. 22168 (I.R. NO. 71332) for a period of six months from the date of the order.
- Costs of the application are reserved pending further proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
Misc Appli 19 of 2007
KENYA ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ……..…APPLICANT
V E R S U S
TAIRO INVESTMENTS LIMITED ……….………...RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This is an application (by originating motion dated 18th July, 2007) by the KENYA ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION (hereinafter called “the Applicant”) under section 56 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No.3 of 2003 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Under sub-section (1) of that section, this court may, on an ex parte application by the Applicant, make an order prohibiting the transfer or disposal of, or other dealing with, property “on evidence that the property was acquired as a result of corrupt conduct”.
The Applicant seeks against the Respondent, TAIRO INVESTMENTS LIMITED, an order to prohibit the transfer of, or other dealings with, the property known as L.R. NO. 22168 (I.R. NO. 71332) for a period of six months from the date of the order. There are two supporting affidavits. The first one is sworn by one YUVINALIS ANGIMA, an investigator, duly appointed, working with the Applicant. To it are annexed many and varied documents. The second supporting affidavit is sworn by one PETER JAMES KAMWARA; he describes himself as “the Head of Forest Survey and Mapping in the newly inaugurated Kenya Forest Service … established under the Forests Act, 2005”. He further states that prior to that appointment he was the head of the survey and mapping section within the Department of Forestry working under the Director of Forestry. There are three documents annexed to this affidavit.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Applicant. I have also closely perused the two supporting affidavits and the documents annexed thereto. The parcel of land the subject-matter of these proceedings is one of thirty-five (35) sub-divisions of the original land parcel L.R. No. 12835 (Grant No. I.R. 37653). I had occasion in Nairobi Miscellaneous Application No. ELC. 16 of 2007 (Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission v Tairo Investments Limited) to consider a similar application involving five (5) of the thirty-five (35) sub-divisions. I do not intend to repeat the exercise. Therefore, for the reasons given in the ruling dated 19th July 2007in the aforesaid application, I will allow the present application. I will grant the prohibitory order sought. Costs of the application will be reserved pending any further proceedings herein. Those will be the orders of the court.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2007
H. P. G. WAWERU
J U D G E
DELIVERED THIS 3rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2007