https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11909

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI** **CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NO. E035 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2, 10, 19, 20(1), (2), (3), 21(1), 22(1), 23(1), 24(1) AND (3), 165, 258, 259(1) AND 260 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010.** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 35 (1)(b) AND 46 (1) & (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010** **BETWEEN** **MAURICE OWINO OKELLO..................................................................PETITIONER** **VERSUS** **CONSOLIDATED BANK OF KENYA LTD................................................RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** **INTRODUCTION** 1. The Petitioner, Maurice Owino Okello, has moved this Honourable Court seeking constitutional redress arising from what he contends was the unlawful closure of his bank account and the Respondent's refusal to grant him access to his financial records. By the Petition dated 23rd January 2025, the Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 22 of the Constitution, seeking declarations that the Respondent, Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd, violated his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under Articles 35, 40, 46, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. He further prays for special damages in the sum of Kshs. 10,000,000, general and exemplary damages for the alleged constitutional violations, together with costs of the Petition. 2. The Respondent opposes the Petition and advances an entirely different account of the circumstances giving rise to the dispute. It maintains that the Petitioner's account was not unlawfully closed but was lawfully frozen following a sophisticated cyber intrusion into the Bank's systems on 26th October 2015, which culminated in the fraudulent transfer of Kshs. 177,100,500 from various corporate accounts. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner's account constituted a principal conduit through which the fraud was perpetrated, having received Kshs. 14,000,000 of the impugned funds, a portion of which was thereafter withdrawn with haste. The Respondent contends that its actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious, but were undertaken in the discharge of its statutory obligations under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), the Banking Act, and the Prudential Guidelines issued by the Central Bank of Kenya. 3. The dispute before the Court therefore presents two competing and irreconcilable narratives. 4. On the one hand is the Petitioner's case that the Respondent acted arbitrarily and in violation of the Constitution by unlawfully closing his bank account and denying him access to his financial records. On the other hand is the Respondent's case that the impugned measures were lawfully undertaken, and indeed mandated, in furtherance of its statutory obligations to detect, prevent and respond to serious financial crime. The Court is therefore called upon to determine whether the Respondent's conduct, when examined against the applicable constitutional and statutory framework, amounted to a lawful and justifiable limitation of the Petitioner's rights or constituted a violation of the constitutional guarantees relied upon. **BACKGROUND** 1. The factual background giving rise to this Petition is principally discernible from the affidavits sworn by the parties and the documentary evidence placed before the Court. The Petitioner, Maurice Owino Okello, deposes that he opened a bank account with the Respondent at its Koinange Street Branch on 2nd October 2015. He maintains that he was at all material times a legitimate customer of the Respondent and avers that, by the time the account was closed, it held a balance of between Kshs. 10,000,000 and Kshs. 15,000,000 The Petitioner's account of the material events is as follows. 2. According to the Petitioner, on 4th October 2024 he visited the Respondent's Harambee Avenue Branch for the purpose of obtaining his bank statements. He was informed that his account had been closed and was instructed to pay Kshs. 1,850 for the printing of the requested statements. The Petitioner states that he duly made the payment through M-Pesa Agent No. 463004. Notwithstanding the payment, the Respondent declined to furnish him with the requested bank statements. The Petitioner's advocates thereafter addressed a demand letter to the Respondent dated 22nd October 2024, followed by a further letter dated 29th October 2024, both of which, according to the Petitioner, elicited no response. The Petitioner further avers that from the date of opening the account in October 2015 until October 2024, he was never informed of any suspected fraudulent activity in relation to his account, nor did the Respondent take any action concerning the same for nearly a decade. He contends that the Respondent's actions infringed his constitutional rights and occasioned him substantial financial hardship. 3. The Respondent, on its part, presents a substantially more elaborate and accusatory account of the events giving rise to the dispute. Through the Replying Affidavit sworn by James Munyasia, the Manager of its Central Operations Unit, the Respondent avers that although the Petitioner opened the impugned account on 2nd October 2015, the initial deposits made into the account were merely nominal sums intended to create an appearance of legitimacy. The Respondent further states that on 26th October 2015 its banking systems were compromised through a sophisticated cyber intrusion. In support of this assertion, it relies upon a forensic investigation report, an Internal Audit Report, and the findings of subsequent police investigations. 4. The Respondent avers that between 26th September 2015 and 14th October 2015, a total of fourteen fraudulent bank accounts were opened across six of its branches. It alleges that the accounts were opened in contravention of the Bank's Know Your Customer (KYC) policy, with M-Pesa statements being used as proof of introduction, and that the accounts were introduced by newly recruited and inexperienced members of staff, including one Charles Omondi. According to the Respondent, a total of Kshs. 177,100,500 was fraudulently transferred from fifteen corporate accounts and channelled through the said fraudulent accounts. 5. The Respondent specifically alleges that the Petitioner was among the principal beneficiaries of the fraudulent scheme. It avers that bank statements demonstrate that on 26th October 2015, a total sum of Kshs. 14,000,000 was credited into the Petitioner's account, comprising Kshs. 6,000,000 transferred from Mastermind Tobacco K. Ltd and Kshs. 8,000,000 transferred from Centaur Milling Enterprise Ltd. The Respondent further alleges that within twenty-four hours of receiving the said funds, the Petitioner withdrew Kshs. 3,016,426.50 through a series of Automated Teller Machine (ATM) withdrawals and mobile banking transfers in a deliberate attempt to dissipate the fraudulently acquired funds. 6. The Respondent further avers that subsequent forensic investigations established collusion between the Petitioner and two former employees attached to its Information and Communication Technology Department, namely John Macharia and Kenneth Mwithi. It states that the said individuals were arrested and charged in Milimani Criminal Case No. 1609 of 2016. The Petitioner, however, points out that the criminal proceedings were subsequently withdrawn. The Respondent further contends that efforts to institute criminal proceedings against the Petitioner were frustrated by his disappearance for a period of nine years. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner resurfaced on 2nd October 2024 but fled from its Harambee Avenue Branch after members of staff discreetly alerted the security department. The Respondent maintains that the Petitioner's disappearance impeded and ultimately stalled investigations being undertaken under BFIU Inquiry File No. 581 of 2024. 7. The Respondent maintains that all the actions it undertook were firmly anchored in its statutory obligations. It avers that upon detecting the impugned fraudulent transactions, it froze the Petitioner's account and debited therefrom the sum of Kshs. 10,984,171.50, which amount was transferred into a suspense account pending restitution to the rightful account holders. According to the Respondent, those actions were undertaken pursuant to Section 33B of the Banking Act and Regulation 8 of the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines. The Respondent further states that it reported the matter to the Banking Fraud Investigation Unit (BFIU) on 26th October 2015 and thereafter submitted the requisite reports to the Financial Reporting Centre (FRC) in compliance with Sections 44 and 45 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA). **THE PETITIOINER’S CASE** 1. The Petitioner's case, as discerned from the Petition, the Supporting Affidavit, the Supplementary Affidavit, and his written submissions, rests on the contention that the Respondent's actions were unlawful, arbitrary, and procedurally unfair, and consequently violated his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. The Petitioner maintains that he is an innocent account holder whose funds have, without lawful justification, been withheld for close to a decade. 2. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent's decision to freeze his bank account was unlawful, there being no court order authorising such action. He submits that the applicable statutory framework, particularly the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), prescribes a clear legal procedure for the freezing and preservation of accounts suspected to be connected with criminal activity. According to the Petitioner, that framework requires the relevant enforcement agencies, including the Asset Recovery Agency, to seek preservation orders from the High Court, such orders being of limited duration. It is his case that the Respondent disregarded this statutory procedure and instead took the law into its own hands. The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent failed to report the suspected fraudulent transactions to the Financial Reporting Centre (FRC) or the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) within the prescribed timelines under the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines (CBK/PG/08), which require the submission of Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) within seven days. He asserts that the Respondent's failure to take any action for nearly nine years, coupled with what he describes as a belated report to the Banking Fraud Investigation Unit (BFIU) in October 2024, demonstrates bad faith and constitutes an afterthought intended to sanitise its unlawful conduct. 3. The Petitioner further denies any involvement in the alleged fraud. He avers that he is a stranger to the allegations levelled against him and that he was never informed of the criminal proceedings instituted against the former employees of the Respondent, nor was he ever arrested, summoned, or charged in connection with the cyber intrusion of 2015. He further points out that the criminal proceedings against John Macharia and another were ultimately withdrawn on 6th December 2019, a circumstance which, in his view, undermines the credibility of the Respondent's allegations. The Petitioner also challenges the evidentiary value of the investigative report relied upon by the Respondent, contending that it is an internal document whose authenticity cannot be independently verified and whose findings are founded upon hearsay and unsubstantiated assertions. In support of that contention, he relies upon ***Patrick Gukura Muraya v Co-operative Insurance Co of Kenya Limited [2019] KEHC 3147 (KLR),*** for the proposition that where the maker of an investigative report is not called to testify, the report's probative value is substantially diminished. 4. The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent's conduct infringed several of his constitutional rights. He invokes Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution, asserting that the Respondent's refusal to furnish him with his bank statements denied him access to information required for the protection of his financial interests. He argues that the denial was particularly unjustified given that he had paid the prescribed charges for the preparation of the statements. He further relies upon Article 46 of the Constitution, maintaining that as a consumer of banking services, he was entitled to services of reasonable quality, including clear communication regarding the status of his account. According to the Petitioner, the closure of his account without notice constituted a violation of his consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2012, while the Respondent's acceptance of payment for bank statements which it subsequently declined to provide amounted to an unfair practice contrary to Section 12 of that Act. 5. The Petitioner further submits that the unilateral freezing of his account amounted to a violation of his right to fair administrative action guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution. He contends that the Respondent's decision constituted administrative action affecting his legal rights, yet it was undertaken without prior notice, without affording him an opportunity to be heard, and without furnishing any reasons for the decision, thereby offending the principles of natural justice. It is further his case that the impugned action was neither lawful, reasonable, nor procedurally fair, having been undertaken outside the confines of the law and maintained for an unreasonable and disproportionate period. In support of that proposition, the Petitioner places considerable reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ***Wanderi & 106 others v Engineers Registration Board & 7 others; Egerton University & another (Interested Parties) [2018] KESC 54 (KLR),*** wherein the Court underscored that the lawfulness of administrative action forms an integral component of Article 47, and that unlawful administrative action amounts to a violation of the Constitution and, consequently, the right to human dignity. Reliance is placed upon ***Geothermal Development Company Limited v Attorney General & 3 others [2013] KEHC 4725 (KLR)***, where the High Court held that a notice which fails to disclose its nature, the consequences of non-compliance, and the available avenues of redress falls short of the constitutional threshold of procedural fairness under Article 47. 6. The Petitioner further contends that the prolonged freezing of his account violated his right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution. He argues that the continued deprivation of access to his funds for over nine years, without any court order or other lawful basis, constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property. In support of this contention, the Petitioner relies on the case of ***Allianz Savings v Attorney General & 2 Others [2022] KEHC 13239 (KLR),*** in which the Court held that a bank account cannot remain frozen indefinitely and that, absent the institution of the necessary legal proceedings, including those relating to ongoing investigations, such prolonged freezing is unconstitutional for offending Article 40 of the Constitution. 7. The Petitioner further asserts that the Respondent violated his right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution by condemning him unheard. He maintains that no evidence of wrongdoing was ever presented to him and that the Respondent proceeded on the assumption of his guilt without subjecting the allegations to any lawful process. He further contends that the Respondent's reliance on a newspaper article describing him as a "wanted" fraud suspect is legally untenable, on the basis that media reports constitute hearsay and cannot, without more, amount to admissible evidence against him. 8. In conclusion, the Petitioner maintains that the material placed before the Court by the Respondent is insufficient to justify the alleged infringement of his constitutional rights. He accordingly urges the Court to find that the Respondent violated his rights under Articles 35, 40, 46, 47 and 50 of the Constitution and to grant the reliefs sought in the Petition, including declarations of constitutional violation, special damages in the sum of Kshs. 10,000,000 general and exemplary damages, costs of the Petition, and an order directing the Respondent to forthwith unfreeze his account and provide him with his bank statements. **THE RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. The Respondent's case is founded upon the contention that its actions were undertaken in strict compliance with its statutory obligations and in furtherance of the public interest. It characterises the Petition as vexatious, frivolous, and instituted in bad faith, contending that it constitutes an attempt by the Petitioner to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as a shield against criminal accountability arising from his alleged involvement in a large-scale cyber fraud. The Respondent maintains that the impugned measures were neither arbitrary nor unlawful, but were lawfully undertaken pursuant to mandatory statutory obligations and constituted a necessary and proportionate response to a serious threat to the integrity of the financial system. 2. The Respondent principally anchors its defence upon the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), the Banking Act, and the Prudential Guidelines issued by the Central Bank of Kenya. It submits that Sections 3, 4, 7, 44, 45 and 82 of POCAMLA impose mandatory obligations upon reporting institutions to detect, preserve, report, and prevent the movement of illicit funds. Particular reliance is placed upon Section 44(2) of POCAMLA, which requires a reporting institution that forms a suspicion of money laundering to report the transaction or activity to the Financial Reporting Centre as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in any event not later than seven days after the suspicion is formed. The Respondent further points to the penal consequences prescribed under Section 45 of the Act for non-compliance, contending that those sanctions underscore the mandatory nature of its statutory obligations. In addition, the Respondent relies upon Section 33B (1) of the Banking Act, which obliges banking institutions to establish and maintain appropriate systems and procedures for detecting and preventing the use of their facilities for money laundering and other criminal activities. 3. It is the Respondent's case that upon detecting the impugned credits into the Petitioner's account, it became legally obliged to freeze the account and report the matter to the relevant investigative and regulatory authorities. The Respondent contends that it could not lawfully defer such action pending the procurement of a court order, as any delay would have afforded the Petitioner an opportunity to dissipate the funds and would have constituted a dereliction of its statutory obligations, thereby exposing the Bank to regulatory sanctions and possible criminal liability. According to the Respondent, financial institutions serve as gatekeepers of the integrity of the financial system and are not adjudicative bodies. Their statutory mandate, it submits, is to detect, preserve and report suspicious transactions. In support of that proposition, the Respondent places reliance on ***Assets Recovery Agency v Cullinan Private Jet Corp & Another [2023] KEHC 26768 (KLR),*** wherein the High Court held that a reporting institution is not required to obtain prior judicial intervention before restricting activity on an account reasonably suspected of facilitating criminal conduct, such preservation being preventive in nature and directed towards safeguarding the financial system. 4. The Respondent further submits that its actions satisfied the constitutional test under Article 24 of the Constitution. It argues that any limitation imposed upon the Petitioner's rights was reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, having been undertaken for the legitimate purposes of preventing crime, protecting the integrity of the financial system, and safeguarding the interests of innocent third parties whose funds had allegedly been misappropriated. It further contends that the right to property guaranteed under Article 40 is not absolute and may lawfully be limited where such limitation is authorised by law, proportionate, and demonstrably in the public interest. 5. In response to the Petitioner's claim under Article 35 of the Constitution, the Respondent submits that the right of access to information is not absolute and must be balanced against competing public interests, including the protection of ongoing criminal investigations and the financial privacy rights of third parties. It argues that disclosure of the requested bank statements would have compromised the integrity of investigations then being undertaken under BFIU Inquiry File No. 581 of 2024 into the alleged cyber fraud. In support of this position, the Respondent relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in ***Mohamed Abdi Mohamud v IEBC & Others [2019] eKLR***, wherein the Court recognised that the right of access to information may be limited where disclosure is likely to prejudice ongoing investigations or would otherwise be inconsistent with the public interest. The Respondent further contends that its refusal to release the bank statements was justified by the need to safeguard the financial privacy of the corporate account holders from whose accounts the impugned funds were allegedly transferred. 6. With regard to the Petitioner's claim under Article 46 of the Constitution, the Respondent contends that the Petitioner cannot properly invoke consumer protection rights where the banker-customer relationship is alleged to have been tainted by criminal conduct. It submits that its overriding statutory obligations under POCAMLA and the Banking Act superseded any residual contractual obligations owed to the Petitioner. In support of that proposition, reliance is placed upon ***Viable Deco Solutions Ltd v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd [2014] eKLR,*** where the Court held that a bank's contractual obligations to its customer remain subject to overriding statutory and regulatory duties and that, where fraud or illegality is reasonably suspected, the bank's primary obligation is to comply with the applicable regulatory framework. 7. The Respondent further argues that neither the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 nor the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution was engaged in the circumstances of this case. It contends that the impugned actions did not amount to administrative or adjudicative decision-making but constituted compliance measures undertaken in fulfilment of mandatory statutory obligations. It distinguishes its position from that of a public authority exercising public power, maintaining that it is a regulated financial institution discharging statutory compliance obligations rather than an administrative body exercising public authority. In that regard, the Respondent relies upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in ***Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & Another [2015] eKLR,*** where the Court explained that Article 47 is engaged where the impugned decision constitutes administrative action undertaken in the exercise of public authority. The Respondent also relies upon ***Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority & Another [2012] eKLR,*** in which Majanja J observed that compliance measures undertaken in the discharge of statutory obligations do not constitute adjudicative processes within the contemplation of Article 50 of the Constitution. 8. The Respondent further contends that the Petition does not satisfy the constitutional pleading threshold articulated in ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR.*** It argues that the Petitioner has failed to plead, with reasonable precision, the constitutional provisions alleged to have been violated and the manner in which those alleged violations occurred. In its view, the Petition is vague, lacking in specificity, and founded upon broad assertions and assumptions rather than precise factual and legal particulars. 9. The Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the Petition with costs. It further prays for a declaration compelling the Petitioner to present himself before the Banking Fraud Investigation Unit (BFIU) to facilitate the completion of criminal investigations under Inquiry File No. 581 of 2024, contending that such an order would serve the interests of justice, uphold the rule of law, and protect the integrity of the financial system. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. Having carefully considered the Petition, the affidavits filed by the parties in support of and in opposition to the Petition, the written submissions together with the authorities cited, and the documentary evidence forming part of the record, I am of the considered view that the following issues arise for determination: 2. ***Whether the Petition meets the constitutional threshold for pleading with the required precision as established in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic.*** 3. ***Whether the Respondent's actions in freezing the Petitioner's account, refusing to release his bank statements, and debiting Kshs.10,984,171.50 from his account were lawful, proportionate, and procedurally fair, or whether they constituted a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights.*** 4. ***Whether the Respondent's conduct violated the Petitioner's rights under Articles 35, 40, 46, 47, and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.*** 5. ***Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Petition, including special, general, and exemplary damages, and costs.*** **Whether the Petition meets the constitutional threshold for pleading with the required precision as established in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic.** 1. The Respondent has raised, as a preliminary issue, the question whether the Petition satisfies the constitutional threshold for pleading established in ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (supra).*** It contends that the Petition is vague, lacking in the requisite precision, and consequently incapable of sustaining a constitutional cause of action. This objection is not without significance. It goes to the very foundation of constitutional litigation, for a court cannot meaningfully adjudicate an alleged violation of constitutional rights unless the petitioner has clearly identified the grievance complained of, the constitutional provisions alleged to have been infringed, and the manner in which the alleged infringement occurred. It is therefore appropriate that this issue be determined before consideration of the substantive merits of the Petition. 2. The requirement for precision in constitutional pleadings was authoritatively articulated in ***Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (supra***), where the Court held that a litigant seeking constitutional redress must set out, with a reasonable degree of precision, the complaint made, the constitutional provisions alleged to have been violated, and the manner in which those provisions are said to have been infringed. That principle was not intended to impose an unduly technical or formalistic burden upon litigants. Rather, it serves the substantive purpose of ensuring that the respondent is adequately apprised of the case it is required to meet and that the Court is able to identify, with clarity, the issues falling for determination. Absent such precision, there exists the real risk of prejudice to the respondent and uncertainty in the adjudicative process. 3. The principle has since been consistently affirmed and refined by the superior courts. In ***Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR),*** the Court of Appeal observed that precision is not synonymous with exactitude. The Court emphasised that while constitutional pleadings must contain sufficient particulars of the alleged violations, they need not adhere to rigid or formulaic prescriptions. The true function of pleadings, the Court observed, is to define the issues in controversy. The applicable test is therefore whether the pleadings sufficiently inform the respondent of the case to be answered and enable the Court to discern the constitutional questions requiring determination. 4. Applying those principles to the present Petition, the Respondent submits that the Petitioner merely cites various constitutional provisions in a blanket fashion without specifically correlating each factual complaint to the alleged constitutional violation. While I agree that the Petition could have been framed with greater precision and elegance, I am not persuaded that the alleged deficiencies are of such magnitude as to render it fatally defective. A holistic reading of the Petition, together with the Supporting Affidavit, Supplementary Affidavit, and written submissions, leaves little doubt as to the nature of the Petitioner's grievances. Those grievances are plainly identifiable as the alleged unlawful freezing or closure of his bank account, the refusal to furnish him with his bank statements, and the debiting of funds from his account. 5. Equally, the pleadings sufficiently disclose the nexus between those factual complaints and the constitutional provisions invoked. The alleged refusal to provide bank statements is expressly linked to the right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution. The freezing of the Petitioner's account and the consequent denial of access to the funds therein are relied upon as constituting violations of the right to property under Article 40 and consumer rights under Article 46. Likewise, the Petitioner's complaint that the Respondent acted without prior notice, denied him an opportunity to be heard, failed to furnish reasons for its decision, and maintained the impugned restrictions for an inordinate period is clearly anchored upon Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution concerning fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing. 6. In my view, the requirement of reasonable precision does not oblige a litigant to produce pleadings of exhaustive or academic perfection. Rather, it requires sufficient clarity to enable the respondent to appreciate the case it is called upon to answer and the Court to identify the issues requiring adjudication. 7. In ***Huka & 2 others v County Assembly of Isiolo & another; Kenya Kwanza Coalition & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2023] KEHC 18913 (KLR)*** the court held thus: ***“The requirement of setting out with specificity the particulars of the petitioner’s complaint under the Bill of Rights and other constitutional litigation (and indeed any pleading before the court) is a requirement of common sense that a claimant’s case should be clear and elaborate to enable the respondent know the case it has to meet and the court the question it will be asked to determine. Pleadings should not leave the Court guessing the case before it, as the court in Anerita Karimi Njeru, supra, did or the respondent the case he has to answer”*** 1. Guided by the foregoing principles, I am satisfied that the present Petition meets the constitutional threshold established in ***Anarita Karimi***. The Respondent cannot plausibly contend that it was unaware of the case it was required to answer. Indeed, the detailed Replying Affidavit sworn on its behalf and the comprehensive written submissions filed in opposition to the Petition demonstrate a clear appreciation of the factual and legal issues raised by the Petitioner. No prejudice has been shown to have been occasioned by the manner in which the Petition was pleaded. 2. Consequently, the Respondent's objection founded upon the alleged lack of precision in the pleadings is without merit and is hereby rejected. I find that the Petition is competently before this Court and shall proceed to determine the substantive constitutional issues arising therein on their merits. **Whether the Respondent's actions in freezing the Petitioner's account, refusing to release his bank statements, and debiting Kshs.10,984,171.50 from his account were lawful, proportionate, and procedurally fair, or whether they constituted a violation of the Petitioner's constitutional rights.** 1. This issue lies at the heart of the present Petition. The determination of whether the Respondent's actions were lawful, proportionate, and procedurally fair requires the Court to examine, in sequence, the circumstances leading to the freezing of the Petitioner's account, the continued restriction of access to the account over an extended period, the subsequent debit of Kshs.10,984,171.50, and the procedural manner in which those decisions were undertaken. The Court must consider the evidence placed before it against the applicable constitutional and statutory framework, bearing in mind that while financial institutions have statutory obligations to combat financial crime, those obligations must themselves be exercised within the confines of the Constitution and the law. 2. The starting point of the analysis is the factual matrix surrounding the transactions of 26th October 2015. The Respondent placed before the Court extensive documentary evidence, including bank statements, forensic investigation reports, and internal audit reports. The said material demonstrates that substantial sums were transferred from the accounts of Mastermind Tobacco K. Ltd (Account No. 10021200000182) and Centaur Milling Enterprises Ltd (Account No. 10051200000056), being Kshs.6,000,000 and Kshs.8,000,000 respectively, into the Petitioner's account. The Respondent's evidence was that these transactions were unauthorised, were conducted outside normal working hours, and involved the use of login credentials belonging to staff members who were not on duty at the material time. The evidence presented a basis upon which the Respondent could reasonably suspect that the transactions were connected to fraudulent activity. 3. The Petitioner's own account statement confirms receipt of the said funds and further reflects a series of twenty ATM withdrawals and mobile banking transfers within a short period thereafter. The Respondent contends that the rapid movement of funds immediately after their receipt was consistent with an attempt to dissipate proceeds of fraud. The Court observes that the Petitioner, in his pleadings and affidavits, denied involvement in any fraudulent activity but did not provide an explanation regarding the source of the funds credited into his account, the purpose for which they were received, or the circumstances surrounding their subsequent withdrawal. While the Petitioner bears the burden of establishing the alleged violation of his constitutional rights, the circumstances surrounding the transactions were, on the evidence before Court, sufficiently suspicious to justify regulatory scrutiny and further inquiry. 4. The question that then arises is whether the Respondent was entitled to respond to those circumstances by freezing the Petitioner's account. The Respondent's action must be examined against the statutory obligations imposed upon financial institutions under the anti-money laundering framework. The Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009 (POCAMLA) imposes obligations upon reporting institutions to identify suspicious transactions, prevent the movement of illicit funds, and report suspected money laundering activities to the relevant authorities. Section 44(2) of POCAMLA requires a reporting institution that forms a suspicion of money laundering to report the transaction or activity to the Financial Reporting Centre as soon as is reasonably practicable, but not later than seven days after forming such suspicion. 5. The CBK Prudential Guidelines on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CBK/PG/08) further provide the operational framework through which financial institutions discharge these obligations. These obligations require institutions to identify suspicious activity, escalate concerns, make the necessary reports, and take appropriate measures to prevent the dissipation of suspected illicit funds. The nature of these obligations recognises that financial institutions are often the first point of detection in relation to financial crime and must, in appropriate circumstances, act swiftly to preserve the integrity of the financial system. 6. In that regard, the Court is not persuaded by the Petitioner's argument that the initial freezing of the account was unlawful solely because it was not preceded by a court order. The statutory framework does not require a financial institution, upon detecting suspicious activity, to first obtain judicial authorisation before taking immediate protective measures. Such a requirement would defeat the very purpose of the anti-money laundering regime, as the delay occasioned by seeking prior judicial intervention could result in the dissipation of funds before any protective action is taken. 7. This position finds support in ***Assets Recovery Agency v Cullinan Private Jet Corp & another (supra),*** where the Court considered the distinction between restrictions placed on accounts as part of investigative processes and preservation orders issued by the Court pursuant to POCAMLA. The Court emphasised that a preservation order is a judicial measure that requires the intervention of the Court. The temporary measures available within the anti-money laundering framework, including actions taken in response to suspicious transactions, are preventive in nature and intended to preserve the status quo pending investigation and any further legal process, they do not, in themselves, constitute a determination of guilt or ownership of the funds. 8. Accordingly, having considered the evidence before it, this Court finds that the Respondent's initial decision to freeze the Petitioner's account was lawful. The account had received substantial sums of money arising from transactions which, on the material placed before Court, raised serious concerns of possible fraud. In those circumstances, the Respondent was entitled, and indeed obligated, to take steps to prevent possible dissipation of the funds and to safeguard the interests of the financial system and the alleged victims of the fraud. 9. However, the legality of the initial freezing of the account does not automatically validate the continued restriction of access to the account for an indefinite period. The power to restrict access to an account on the basis of suspicion is inherently temporary and investigative in character. It exists to preserve funds while appropriate inquiries and legal processes are undertaken. It cannot be transformed into an indefinite deprivation of property without further justification. 10. The Respondent maintains that the prolonged freezing of the account was occasioned by the Petitioner's disappearance after the alleged fraud, which allegedly prevented investigative authorities from proceeding against him. The Court has considered this explanation against the evidence on record. The Respondent's own documents demonstrate that the Petitioner was accessible in October 2024. The correspondence from the Petitioner's advocates dated 22nd October 2024 and 29th October 2024, as well as the Respondent's own communications, confirm that the Petitioner had engaged the Respondent regarding his account and was available through his advocates. 11. Further, the Court notes the Petitioner's evidence that he had previously interacted with investigative authorities in relation to other criminal matters involving accounts held with other banks. While that evidence does not determine the merits of the allegations arising from the present matter, it raises doubt as to the assertion that the Petitioner was wholly beyond the reach of investigative authorities for approximately nine years. The evidence before Court demonstrates that the Petitioner was not inaccessible, and there is no sufficient evidence of active investigative steps being undertaken against him during that intervening period. 12. The principle of proportionality requires that any limitation of a constitutional right must not extend beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve the intended lawful purpose. The Respondent's objective of preserving suspected proceeds of crime and protecting the financial system was undoubtedly legitimate. However, maintaining a restriction on a person's access to funds for nearly nine years, without evidence of active proceedings or a demonstrated basis for such continued deprivation, cannot be regarded as a proportionate limitation of the right to property. 13. In ***Allianz Savings v Attorney General & 2 Others (supra),*** the Court addressed a similar circumstance involving the prolonged freezing of accounts pending investigations. The Court held that a restriction on the operation of an account could not be maintained indefinitely in the absence of evidence that investigations were still ongoing. ***“Indeed, it was now more than four (4) years since the petitioner’s chairman was acquitted. The sword of Damocles cannot be allowed to hang over the head of the petitioner indefinitely. The complainants, if any, were at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings against the petitioner herein, if need be, and seek orders to safeguard their interests.”*** 1. The reasoning in Allianz Savings is applicable to the circumstances before this Court. A restriction imposed to facilitate investigations cannot become a permanent substitute for the legal process through which liability is determined. The Respondent has not demonstrated that, during the period of approximately nine years, there were active proceedings against the Petitioner or that any legal process had been commenced to determine the status of the funds. 2. The case of ***Fredrick Ochieng Otieno v Director of Criminal Investigations & another; Kenya Commercial Bank (Interested Party) [2020] KEHC 1953 (KLR)*** is also instructive. In that case, the Court considered the legality of freezing a suspect’s bank account without evidence of compliance with the statutory procedure. The Court held that investigators may obtain orders to preserve funds where the law permits, but that freezing a suspect’s account without complying with the applicable legal requirements risks violating constitutional rights. The Court observed that: **“To ‘freeze’ a suspect’s account without complying with the law cannot be permitted without opening a slippery slope with respect to violation of citizens’ rights. In the absence of orders issued in compliance with the provisions of sections 118-121 of the CPC and section 180 of the Evidence Act, there is no basis for denying the applicant access to his account the subject of this application.”** 1. The principle emerging from that decision is that investigative powers, though necessary, cannot operate outside the boundaries established by law. In the present case, while the Respondent was entitled to take immediate protective measures upon detecting suspicious transactions, it could not rely upon its own failure to progress the matter as justification for maintaining an indefinite restriction upon the Petitioner's property. 2. This Court must next consider the Respondent's decision to debit Kshs.10,984,171.50 from the Petitioner's account and transfer the amount to a suspense account. 3. This action is distinct from the freezing of the account. Whereas freezing preserves the status quo and prevents dissipation of funds, debiting an account and transferring funds amounts to an actual interference with proprietary rights. 4. The legal framework under POCAMLA provides mechanisms through which suspected proceeds of crime may ultimately be preserved and forfeited. Such determination involves judicial oversight. A financial institution may identify suspicious funds, restrict access where authorised, and report the matter to the relevant authorities. However, it does not possess the legal mandate to determine the ultimate ownership of funds or to unilaterally appropriate money from an account on the basis of suspicion alone. 5. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Respondent exceeded its statutory mandate when it unilaterally debited the Petitioner's account and transferred the funds to a suspense account without judicial authorisation. Although the Respondent's stated objective of protecting the interests of the alleged victims of fraud was legitimate, the means adopted had to conform to the law. The protection of third-party interests cannot be achieved through a process that bypasses the legal mechanisms established for the determination of proprietary rights. 6. Finally, the Court considers whether the Respondent complied with the requirements of procedural fairness under Article 47 of the Constitution. Article 47 requires that administrative action be lawful, reasonable, expeditious, efficient, and procedurally fair. The Respondent's decision to restrict access to the Petitioner's account and maintain that restriction over an extended period directly affected the Petitioner's legal and economic interests. 7. The evidence before Court demonstrates that the Petitioner was not informed of the reasons for the restriction, was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and was not provided with any explanation regarding the continued status of his account. The duty to act fairly is not extinguished merely because an institution suspects criminal activity. Indeed, the existence of such suspicion makes it even more important that appropriate communication and procedural safeguards are observed, unless disclosure is prohibited by law. 8. In ***Viable Deco Solutions Limited v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited [2014] KEHC 4791 (KLR),*** the Court recognised that freezing an account is an intrusive measure with significant consequences for the affected party. The Court observed that such a measure ought ordinarily to be disclosed to the affected party, unless disclosure is restricted or prohibited by law, including through a lawful confidentiality or “gag order”. The Court stated that: ***“…Freezing an account is an intrusive measure of extreme dimensions and must be fully disclosed to the affected party, unless, the disclosure has been restricted or limited by law through what I call ‘’gag order’’ which prohibits the Bank or the relevant officer of the Bank from disclosing the existence of a surveillance or freeze order.”*** 1. The Respondent has not demonstrated that it was legally prohibited from notifying the Petitioner of the restriction imposed upon his account. The prolonged silence and failure to communicate the reasons for the restriction fell short of the procedural fairness required under Article 47 of the Constitution. 2. This Court finds that while the Respondent acted lawfully in initially freezing the Petitioner's account upon detecting suspicious transactions, the continued restriction of the account for approximately nine years, the unilateral debit of Kshs.10,984,171.50 without judicial authorisation, and the failure to accord the Petitioner procedural fairness constituted violations of the Petitioner's constitutional rights. **Whether the Respondent's conduct violated the Petitioner's rights under Articles 35, 40, 46, 47, and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.** 1. The findings made in the preceding issue provide the foundation upon which the alleged constitutional violations must be determined. The question before the Court is not merely whether the Petitioner's rights were affected, but rather the specific constitutional guarantees engaged by the Respondent's conduct and the extent to which those rights were infringed. The Court has already found that the Respondent acted lawfully in initially restricting access to the Petitioner's account upon detecting suspicious transactions. However, the Court has further found that the indefinite continuation of that restriction, the failure to accord the Petitioner procedural fairness, and the unilateral debiting of Kshs.10,984,171.50 from the account were unlawful. It is against that background that each of the alleged constitutional violations falls to be considered. 2. The Petitioner first alleges a violation of his right to access information under Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution. The basis of this claim is that he requested his bank statements from the Respondent, paid the requisite charges for their provision, but the Respondent declined to release them. The Petitioner contends that the statements were necessary for him to understand the status of his account, challenge the restriction imposed upon it, and pursue appropriate legal remedies. 3. The Respondent argues that the refusal to provide the statements was justified by the need to protect ongoing investigations and safeguard confidential information relating to third parties. While the Court recognises that the right of access to information is not absolute, any limitation placed upon that right must satisfy the requirements of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality. A party seeking to restrict access to information must demonstrate a lawful basis for doing so. 4. In the present matter, the Respondent has not demonstrated that disclosure of the Petitioner's own account statements was prohibited by law or that the release of those statements would necessarily compromise any active investigation. The evidence before Court does not establish that, during the period preceding October 2024, there were active investigative steps against the Petitioner that would have been prejudiced by disclosure of his own banking records. The Respondent's refusal to provide the statements therefore deprived the Petitioner of information necessary for him to understand and challenge the restrictions placed upon his account. 5. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the Petitioner with his bank statements, without demonstrating a lawful and proportionate justification, amounted to a violation of the Petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution. 6. The Petitioner also alleges a violation of his consumer rights under Article 46 of the Constitution. The relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent was, in the ordinary course, one of a consumer and a provider of banking services. Article 46 guarantees consumers the right to information necessary for them to obtain the full benefit of goods and services, the right to protection of their economic interests, and the right to goods and services of reasonable quality. 7. The Respondent submits that the Petitioner's invocation of consumer rights is misplaced because the account had been linked to suspected fraudulent activity. That argument, however, cannot be accepted in absolute terms. The existence of suspicion does not automatically extinguish the contractual and constitutional obligations owed by a financial institution to its customer. While the Respondent was entitled to take protective measures to safeguard the financial system, such measures were required to be undertaken transparently, lawfully, and fairly. 8. In this case, the Respondent maintained a restriction over the Petitioner's account for approximately nine years without informing him of the reasons for the restriction, without providing him with relevant information regarding the status of the account, and without according him an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Respondent accepted payment for the provision of statements but subsequently declined to provide them without sufficient explanation. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent failed to meet the standard of transparency and fairness required in its dealings with the Petitioner as a consumer of banking services. 9. The Court accordingly finds that the Respondent's conduct violated the Petitioner's rights under Article 46 of the Constitution, particularly in relation to the protection of his economic interests and his entitlement to information necessary for him to obtain the benefit of the banking services for which he had contracted. 10. The Petitioner further relies upon Article 40 of the Constitution concerning the right to property. The Court has already determined that the Respondent's unilateral debit of Kshs.10,984,171.50 from the Petitioner's account, without judicial authorisation, amounted to an unlawful interference with the Petitioner's proprietary rights. The continued restriction of access to the account for an unreasonable period similarly constituted a limitation upon the Petitioner's enjoyment of his property. 11. While the right to property is not absolute and may be limited where the limitation is lawful and justifiable under Article 24 of the Constitution, the limitation must nevertheless comply with the law. In the circumstances of this case, the initial preservation of the account was justified, but the subsequent indefinite restriction and unilateral appropriation of funds exceeded the Respondent's lawful mandate. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent violated the Petitioner's right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution. 12. The most significant constitutional question arising from the Respondent's conduct concerns the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution. The Respondent argues that its actions were merely compliance measures undertaken pursuant to statutory obligations and did not constitute administrative action. The Court is unable to accept that argument. 13. The Respondent's decisions directly affected the Petitioner's legal and economic interests. The freezing of his account, refusal to provide information relating to his account, and transfer of funds from his account were decisions that had immediate and substantial consequences upon him. Such conduct falls within the scope of administrative action contemplated under Article 47 and was therefore required to comply with the constitutional requirements of lawfulness, reasonableness, and procedural fairness. 14. The Respondent took adverse action against the Petitioner by restricting access to the account without notifying him of the basis for the restriction, providing reasons for the continued limitation, or affording him an opportunity to address the transactions in question. Although the Respondent was entitled to take prompt measures upon detection of suspicious activity, that obligation did not exempt it from the duty to act fairly and lawfully once any immediate preservation measures had been undertaken. 15. In ***Wanderi & 106 others v Engineers Registration Board & 7 others; Egerton University & another (Interested Parties) [2018] KESC 54 (KLR)***, the Supreme Court emphasised the centrality of legality in the exercise of power. Administrative action must be founded on lawful authority, must be exercised within the limits of that authority, and must not be arbitrary. 16. The principle is equally applicable to the exercise of statutory and regulatory powers affecting financial rights. In ***Fredrick Ochieng Otieno v Director of Criminal Investigations & another; Kenya Commercial Bank (Interested Party) supra, Allianz Savings v Attorney General & 2 Others supra***, and ***Assets Recovery Agency v Cullinan Private Jet Corp & another*** ***supra*** the Courts recognised that restrictions affecting access to funds must be undertaken within the framework of the law and cannot continue indefinitely without proper justification. 17. Accordingly, while the Respondent was entitled to take prompt measures upon detection of suspicious activity, that obligation did not permit indefinite restrictions, refusal to provide reasons, or unilateral action affecting the Petitioner’s funds without compliance with applicable legal safeguards. 18. The Court is further not persuaded that the Respondent’s status as a private entity places its conduct beyond constitutional scrutiny. As recognised in ***Rose Wangui Mambo & 2 others v Limuru Country Club & 17 others [2014] KEHC 7683 (KLR),*** private status alone does not shield an entity from accountability where its actions affect fundamental rights. 19. The Petitioner's reliance on Article 50 concerning the right to a fair hearing also requires consideration. The Court accepts the Respondent's argument to the extent that Article 50 is primarily concerned with proceedings before courts and tribunals involving the determination of rights and obligations. The compliance measures undertaken by a financial institution in response to suspicious transactions do not necessarily amount to a formal hearing contemplated under Article 50. 20. However, the principles underlying fair hearing, including the requirement that a person affected by adverse action should have an opportunity to respond, form part of the broader guarantee of procedural fairness under Article 47. The Petitioner's complaint that he was condemned unheard is therefore more appropriately addressed within the framework of fair administrative action rather than as an independent violation of Article 50. 21. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent violated the Petitioner's rights under Articles 35, 40, 46, and 47 of the Constitution. The Respondent was entitled to discharge its statutory obligations in combating financial crime, but those obligations did not authorise indefinite deprivation of property, denial of access to information, or disregard of procedural fairness. The constitutional duty to prevent financial crime and the obligation to respect fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive. The Respondent was required to pursue both objectives within the confines of the Constitution and the law, and its failure to do so resulted in the violations established herein. **Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought** 1. Having found that the Respondent violated the Petitioner's rights under Articles 35, 40, 46 and 47 of the Constitution, the Court must now consider the appropriate reliefs available in the circumstances of this case. Article 23 of the Constitution confers upon this Court a broad remedial jurisdiction and empowers it to grant appropriate relief, including declarations, injunctions, compensation, and orders of judicial review. The guiding principle is that the remedy granted must be effective, proportionate, and responsive to the violation established. 2. The Petitioner seeks a declaration that the Respondent violated his constitutional rights. Having considered the evidence and the applicable law, the Court has found that while the Respondent was entitled to initially restrict access to the Petitioner's account upon detecting suspicious transactions, its continued restriction of the account for an unreasonable period, its refusal to provide the Petitioner's account statements without lawful justification, and its unilateral debit of funds without judicial authorisation violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights. 3. The Court therefore grants a declaration that the Respondent violated the Petitioner's rights under Articles 35, 40, 46 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. This declaration serves to vindicate the Petitioner's rights while recognising that the Respondent's initial response to the suspicious transactions was undertaken pursuant to legitimate statutory obligations. 4. The Petitioner further seeks special damages of Kshs.10,000,000 Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. The Petitioner has not placed before Court evidence demonstrating the nature of the alleged loss, the manner in which the amount was computed, or documentary proof supporting the claim. In the absence of such evidence, the Court is unable to make an award of special damages. The claim for special damages is therefore declined. 5. The Petitioner also seeks an order compelling the Respondent to provide him with his bank statements. The Court has already found that the Respondent's refusal to provide the statements, without demonstrating a lawful basis for withholding them, violated the Petitioner's right of access to information under Article 35 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to the requested information. 6. Accordingly, the Respondent is hereby ordered to provide the Petitioner with a complete statement of account from the date of opening of the account to the present date within fourteen (14) days from the date of this judgment. 7. The Petitioner further seeks an order requiring the Respondent to unfreeze his account and restore access to the funds held therein. Having found that the continued restriction of the account was unconstitutional, the Court finds that the Respondent cannot continue to maintain the restriction on the basis of the same unilateral action. 8. The Court, however, recognises that the funds in question remain the subject of allegations of fraud and that the determination of ownership of such funds is not a matter that can be finally determined within the present Petition. The Court therefore does not make any finding as to the ultimate entitlement to the funds. The appropriate forum for such determination is through the lawful processes established under the relevant statutory framework. 9. Consequently, the Respondent shall lift the restriction placed upon the Petitioner's account. This order shall not prevent any competent authority from commencing or continuing lawful proceedings, including any application for preservation or forfeiture orders, should the statutory requirements for such action be satisfied. Any restriction upon the funds must thereafter arise from due process and not from unilateral action by the Respondent. 10. On the issue of costs, the Court shall consider the circumstances of the Petition, including the fact that the Respondent acted pursuant to legitimate statutory obligations in detecting and responding to suspected financial crime, notwithstanding that certain aspects of its subsequent conduct were found to have violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights. **CONCLUSION** 1. This Court has carefully considered the evidence placed before it, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable constitutional and statutory framework. At the heart of this dispute lies the balance between two important public interests: the obligation of financial institutions to detect, prevent, and report financial crime, and the constitutional obligation to respect and protect the rights of individuals affected by such measures. 2. The Court has found that the Respondent’s initial decision to restrict access to the Petitioner’s account was lawful. Upon detection of suspicious transactions involving substantial sums of money, the Respondent was entitled, and indeed obligated, to take immediate measures to preserve the funds and protect the integrity of the financial system. However, the lawfulness of the initial restriction did not confer upon the Respondent an indefinite mandate to maintain that restriction without further action. 3. The Court has found that the continued freezing of the account for nearly a decade, in the absence of demonstrated active investigations or lawful proceedings, violated the Petitioner’s right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution. The Respondent’s refusal to provide the Petitioner with his account statements, despite his request and payment for the same, violated his right of access to information under Article 35. Further, the failure to provide notice, reasons, and an opportunity for engagement before maintaining measures that substantially affected the Petitioner’s interests amounted to a violation of the right to fair administrative action under Article 47. The unilateral debit of Kshs.10,984,171.50 from the Petitioner’s account, without recourse to the lawful judicial processes available for determining the disposition of disputed funds, was similarly unlawful. 4. The Court emphasises that this judgment should not be interpreted as limiting the legitimate role of financial institutions in combating fraud, money laundering, or other forms of financial crime. The protection of the financial system and the interests of innocent depositors are matters of significant public importance. However, the exercise of statutory responsibilities must remain anchored in the Constitution and the rule of law. 5. Financial institutions are required to act as responsible custodians of the financial system by identifying, reporting, and preventing suspicious transactions. At the same time, such institutions must ensure that the measures they undertake are lawful, proportionate, and procedurally fair. The obligation to prevent financial crime and the obligation to respect constitutional rights are complementary duties, not competing ones. 6. The Respondent is an established financial institution operating within a highly regulated environment. It possesses the institutional capacity and expertise required to balance its regulatory obligations with the constitutional guarantees afforded to its customers. In this matter, while its initial response to the suspicious transactions was justified, its subsequent failure to take timely lawful steps to resolve the matter resulted in the infringement of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights. 7. The Court hopes that this judgment will reinforce the principle that constitutional compliance is an integral component of lawful banking practice. The fight against financial crime must proceed hand in hand with fidelity to the Constitution, which remains the supreme law governing the conduct of all persons and institutions within the Republic. 8. Accordingly, this court makes the following final orders: 1. A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent’s actions of refusing to provide the requested bank statements to the Petitioner for Account Number: 10011206002174, held at the Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited, Koinange Street Branch after receiving payment constitute a violation of the Petitioner’s rights under Article 46 (1) of the Constitution. 2. A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent’s actions of closing the Petitioner’s bank account, Account Number: 10011206002174, held at the Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited, Koinange Street Branch, without any justifiable legal cause constitute a violation of the Petitioner’s rights under Article 46 (1) of the Constitution. 3. A declaration be and is hereby issued that the Respondent’s action of refusing to grant the Petitioner access to his bank account, Account Number: 10011206002174, held at the Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited, Koinange Street Branch constitute a violation of the Petitioner’s right under Article 35 (1) (b) of the Constitution. 4. The Respondent is hereby ORDERED to immediately unfreeze the Petitioner's account, Account Number 10011206002174. 5. The Respondent is hereby ORDERED to provide the Petitioner with a complete and detailed bank statement for the account from its opening to the date of this judgment within fourteen (14) days of the date of this judgment. 6. Each party shall bear their own costs. Orders accordingly. File closed Accordingly. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026.** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **BAHATI MWAMUYE MBS** **JUDGE**