https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12169

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NUMBER E350 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** **JOHN NGUMI …………………..……………..….PETITIONER/RESPONDENT** **VERSUS** **ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION…. RESPONDENT/APPLICANT** **R U L I N G** **Introduction** 1. By a notice of motion application dated 9th July, 2026 filed under certificate of urgency, the Respondent sought the following orders: - 2. ***THAT this Honorable Court be pleased to transfer this petition and application to the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division of the High Court of Kenya for hearing and determination.*** 3. ***THAT the costs of the application be in the cause.*** 4. The application is premised on the Practice Directions for the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division of the High Court (“the Practice Directions”) published through Kenya Gazette Notice No. 10263 of 9th December, 2016. 5. The petitioner opposes the application vide a replying affidavit dated 10th July, 2026 and parties filed their respective submissions. **Applicant’s Submissions** 1. The case of the Respondent/Applicant is that the core subject matter giving rise to this petition relates to investigations carried out by themselves concerning illegal payment of USD 51,186,058 by public funds to Jamhuri Holdings Limited which resulted in the recommendation for prosecution of several persons including the Petitioner for offences the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, Cap. 65 and the Leadership and Integrity Act, Cap. 182. 2. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner filed this instant petition for declarations that the investigations stand closed and restraining the commission from further investigations of the allegations of corruption. 3. On the legal and administrative framework of the Anti-Corruption and Economic crimes Division, the Applicant submits that the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes [ACEC) Division was established by the Honourable Chief Justice in 2015, pursuant to the power to organize the business of the High Court into divisions. Section 11 of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act, empowers the Chief Justice to establish such divisions of the High Court as may be necessary for the efficient and effective administration of justice. 4. That Pursuant to Section 5 of the Judicial Service Act and Section 16 of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act, the Chief Justice issued Practice Directions for the efficient management of ACEC Division business. Rule 5(a) of those Practice Directions provides that the ACEC Division shall hear and determine: 1. ***Petitions and Judicial Review applications on claims of infringement or the threatened infringement of constitutional rights relating to corruption and/or economic crimes related matters;*** 1. Further, that Rule 7 of the practice Directions further provided for the transfer to the Division of matters of that character. The rule states that: ***“All cases relating to corruption and economic crimes, which have been lied before other stations or divisions of the High Court, in which hearing has not commenced, shall be transferred to the Anti-Corruption Economic Crimes Division.”*** 1. The applicant submits that the creation of the ACEC Division and the accompanying practice directions do not oust or diminish the unlimited original jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. The Practice Directions operate purely as an internal administrative allocation of business among divisions of the same High Court: they do not create a distinct court or strip jurisdiction. That the relief sought in the application is accordingly not a challenge of this court’s jurisdiction, but a request that jurisdiction admittedly vested in the High Court be exercised, in this instance, through the division specifically designated for matters of this character. 2. On judicial authority, the Applicant submits that courts have on numerous occasions considered and given effect to the Practice Directions establishing the ACEC Division, and have consistently held that petitions of this precise character, that is, petitions challenging the infringement or the threatened infringement of constitutional rights relating to corruption and/or economic crimes, belong in the ACEC Division regardless of the division in which they happen to have been filed. 3. They rely on **Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & another v William Baraka Mtengo & 4 ofhers [2017] eKLR, Ondleki Nyairo v Paul Chepkwony & 2 others [2017] eKLR and Mbuvi Mike Sonko v EACC & 4 others, Machakos High Court Petition No. E6 of 2020**, to drive their point home. 4. The Applicants aver that the Petition arises directly from, and cannot be understood or adjudicated without reference to, the Commission's investigations into allegations of corruption in the acquisition of JHL's shareholding in Telkom Kenya Limited, an investigation conducted under ACECA and the EACC Act, 2011. 5. *The reliefs sought, being a declaration that the investigation is closed, an order restraining its continuation, and a declaration that it is unconstitutional, would, if granted, directly interfere with the exercise of the Commission's statutory investigative mandate under Section 11(1)(d) of the EACC Act and the ongoing review before the ODPP. Such reliefs are the paradigm of the subject matter the ACEC Division was constituted to determine.* 6. *The fact that the Petitioner has not yet been charged is immaterial. As established above, the mandate of the ACEC Division extends to petitions brought by persons under investigation for allegations corruption and economic crime, and is not limited to persons already arraigned before a criminal court.* 7. *The ACEC Division was established to expedite the disposal of all cases relating to corruption and economic crimes and to ease the Increasing workload in the Judicial Review and Constitutional and Human Rights Divisions and other High Court stations throughout the Country.* 8. The applicant finalizes by submitting that the practice directions are express in permitting the transfer sought and the Petitioner does not risk and prejudice, the therefore ask this court to allow the application as prayed. **Petitioner’s Submissions** 1. The Petitioner/Respondent opposes the application for transfer vide submissions dated 14th June, 2026 where they have listed two issues for determination. 2. Whether this Honourable Court possesses jurisdiction to hear and determine the Petition. 3. Whether the Respondent has established any constitutional, statutory, or other legal basis warranting the transfer of the Petition to another Division of the High Court. 4. The Respondent submits that this court has the jurisdiction to determine the petition was filed under Articles 22, 23, and 165 which confer upon the High Court original jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for the enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms and to grant appropriate constitutional relief. 5. The Respondent states that Divisions of the High Court are administrative conveniences for case management and specialization. They do not create separate courts with distinct constitutional jurisdiction and Chief Justice's Practice Directions, while valuable for judicial administration and efficiency cannot confer exclusive jurisdiction on one Division or oust jurisdiction of another division. 6. The Respondent avers that the Petition does not seek; to restrain the Respondent from carrying out lawful investigations; to determine whether corruption or economic crime was committed; to review specific investigative findings on their merits, to adjudicate criminal liability; or to determine any civil recovery claim. 7. That the Petition challenges the Respondent's ongoing refusal to formally conclude the inquiry following the DPP's no-prosecution directive. The core constitutional questions concern fair administrative action (Article 47), equality before the law (Article 27), human dignity (Article 28), legitimate expectation, legal certainty, and continuing violations of fundamental rights and these are quintessential constitutional and human rights issues that fall squarely within the ordinary jurisdiction and expertise of the Constitutional and Human Rights Division. 8. The Respondent further avers that the Applicant has not demonstrated the basis for transfer other than administrative preference and that preference alone is not a recognized legal ground for transfer between Divisions of the same court. Nor has the Respondent shown that transfer would promote judicial economy, reduce costs, enhance efficiency, or advance the interests of justice and since his Petition has already been admitted. Directions have been issued, the parties have appeared, pleadings are substantially closed, and the Petitioner's Notice of Motion seeking urgent conservatory relief remains pending. Transfer at this stage would cause unnecessary delay, contrary to Article 159(2)(b) (justice shall not be delayed) and the guarantees of timely access to constitutional remedies under Articles 22, 23, and 48. 9. The Petitioner relied on **Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights & Democracy & 12 Others [2014] eKLR and Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 Others [2017] eKLR**, he asks that the application be dismissed with costs to him. **Analysis and Determination** 1. From the record, I discern the following issue for determination: ***Whether the application dated 9th July, 2026 is merited?*** 1. As noted by court in [**Prof. Tom Ojienda SC v. Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission [2020] eKLR**](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2020/9340/eng%402020-01-30/source) ***“A judge of the High Court does indeed have jurisdiction to hear all matters in which the High Court has been granted jurisdiction by the Constitution and the laws of the land. The creation of divisions of the High Court is meant to ensure that matters are heard and disposed in an efficient and effective manner.”*** 1. In **Christopher Orina Kenyariri t/a Kenyariri Associates Advocates** , the Court of Appeal appreciated that the practice and requirements that suits be filed at particular stations of the High ***Court “are purely for administration and convenience in the hearing and determination of suits.”*** The Court went ahead and held that such mechanisms reduce costs and expedite hearing and determination of suits. 2. In **Ondieki Nyairo v Paul Chepkwony & 2 others [2017] eKLR,** Mumbi Ngugi, J (as she then was) observed that:- “***As is evident from the Practice Directions issued by the Chief Justice regarding the mandate of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, all matters “relating to corruption and economic crimes” filed under any of the Acts enumerated in Rule 5 fall within the mandate of the Division. In my view, the petition before me is one such matter. It would defeat the purpose of the establishment of the Division if we were to engage in a splitting of hairs and argue that the matter does not fall within its mandate because it does not involve a prosecution for corruption, yet it seeks the orders and sanctions that are within the mandate of the court when dealing with cases initiated under the Acts enumerated in the Practice Direction.”*** 1. This is a fresh matter directly suing the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission over an investigation concerning corruption which is the primary duty of the commission. The Petitioner’s case is that this case does not concern corruption or economic crimes and is therefore not a matter for the AC & EC Division. 2. The pleadings confirm that the dispute arises from the investigation into alleged corrupt deals by the Petitioner, the Respondent states that the investigation is under review by the ODPP to guide on whether to charge the Petitioner and the said investigations relates to actions involving misuse of public resources to wit a government vehicle and the matter falls within its mandate. 3. Rule 5(d) of the Practice Directions provides that the matters to be heard by the AC & EC Division are cases relating to corruption and economic crimes filed under the various Acts of Parliament listed in the petition, the Respondent in conducting investigations into the Petitioner was exercising powers reserved for it by laws over which the AC & EC Division is mandated by the Practice Directions to deal with. It would therefore be inappropriate for this court to claim authority to hear the petition when there is a division that has been created to hear and determine such matters. 4. I see no good reason for this Court to decline an application for transfer of a matter to the correct division given that it is a fresh matter and squarely falls under the AC & EC Division. 5. In short, I find merit in the Respondent’s application. The application is therefore allowed so that this file is transferred to the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division of this Court in Nairobi. 6. The matter shall be mentioned before the Presiding Judge of the Anti-Corruption & Economic Crimes Division, Nairobi on **21st September 2026** for directions on the hearing and disposal of the petition. 7. The costs for the application shall abide the outcome of the petition. ***Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Nairobi this 31st day of July 2026.*** **DAVID MBURU** **JUDGE**