Kenya Case Law

Assets Recovery Agency v Orwenyo & another

Assets Recovery Agency v Orwenyo & another (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E031 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 8647 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (19 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E031 of 2024

Judge

["BM Musyoki"]

The applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that motor vehicle KCT 803E was used to transport cannabis, an offence-related purpose, and the respondent failed to provide a credible lawful explanation for its acquisition or source of funds; therefore the vehicle was liable to forfeiture notwithstanding the respondent's criminal acquittal.

Source excerpt

• Proceeds of crime
• Narcotics trafficking
• Instrumentality of crime
• Balance of probabilities standard
• Effect of criminal acquittal on forfeiture
• Beneficial ownership of motor vehicle

Onyango & 2 others v Republic

Onyango & 2 others v Republic (Criminal Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7825 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (5 June 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Criminal Appeal E020 of 2025

Judge

["BM Musyoki"]

The court found that the evidence, including the complainant’s account, the trap operation, the recovered treated money, the hand swabs, and the transcript/video, established that the appellants jointly participated in, requested, and received the bribe; inconsistencies in ancillary evidence were not material enough to defeat the prosecution case. However, count 3 against the 2nd appellant was duplicitous because section 6(1) creates one offence that may be committed by request, agreement, or receipt, not separate offences for request and receipt.

Source excerpt

• Bribery
• Conspiracy to commit corruption
• First appellate re-evaluation of evidence
• Trap operation evidence
• Electronic evidence
• Duplicity of charges

Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Wambugu & Muriuki Advocates & another; HFC Limited (Interested Party) (Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6349 (KLR)

Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Wambugu & Muriuki Advocates & another; HFC Limited (Interested Party) (Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6349 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (8 May 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E034 of 2025

Judge

["BM Musyoki"]

The application was disallowed because the preservation orders had already subsisted beyond the ninety days sought, making the motion spent, and in any event the explanation offered for further extension was inadequate. The court held that non-availability of one witness did not justify continued preservation or prevent the applicant from instituting the substantive suit.

Source excerpt

• Preservation orders
• Extension of statutory injunctions
• Section 56 anti-corruption and economic crimes act
• Interim orders
• Spent applications

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Napeyok Suppliers & Contractor & 2 others (Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025 & Miscellaneous Civil Application E016 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 5639 (KLR)

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Napeyok Suppliers & Contractor & 2 others (Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025 & Miscellaneous Civil Application E016 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 5639 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025

The High Court held that the preservation-order applications had been overtaken by events after the orders lapsed, closed both files, and made no costs order.

• Preservation orders
• Review of court orders
• Consolidation of cases
• Preservation-orders
• Review-of-court-orders
• Anti-corruption

Assets Recovery Agency v Huka & another

Assets Recovery Agency v Huka & another (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E015 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 5505 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (30 April 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E015 of 2024

The High Court ordered forfeiture of cash, a vehicle, and a motor cycle after finding they were proceeds of crime or used in narcotics trafficking.

• Proceeds of crime
• Civil forfeiture
• Burden of proof
• Narcotic drugs trafficking
• Civil-forfeiture
• Proceeds-of-crime

Assets Recovery Agency v Burugu & another

Assets Recovery Agency v Burugu & another (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E020 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 4842 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (17 April 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E020 of 2024

The applicant failed to establish that the landed properties were proceeds of crime or that the interested party was complicit or had notice of any illegality. The motor vehicle KBE 416Y MERCEDES BENZ was used as an instrumentality of crime and is liable to forfeiture.

Source excerpt

• Civil forfeiture
• Instrumentality of crime
• Proceeds of crime
• Innocent purchaser for value
• Burden of proof

Assets Recovery Agency v Njeri

Assets Recovery Agency v Njeri (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E044 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4933 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (17 April 2026) (Judgment)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E044 of 2025

The applicant established a prima facie case that the funds in question are proceeds of crime; respondent failed to discharge evidentiary burden to show legitimate source; civil forfeiture is concerned with recovery of property, not criminal culpability.

Source excerpt

• Proceeds of crime
• Embezzlement
• Public funds
• Forfeiture
• Burden of proof

Assets Recovery Agency v Mwangi & 2 others

Assets Recovery Agency v Mwangi & 2 others (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E034 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 4934 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (17 April 2026) (Ruling)

Court

High Court

Case number

Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Case E034 of 2024

Section 97 of POCAMLA, as a substantive statutory provision, mandates that preservation orders remain in force pending the outcome of any appeal, regardless of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. Since a substantive appeal was filed within time, the preservation orders and retention of rental income must subsist until the appeal is determined. There is no conflict between Sections 89 and 97 of POCAMLA in this context.

Source excerpt

• Preservation orders
• Stay of execution
• Appeals
• Forfeiture of assets
• Statutory interpretation