'1. The ruling herein relates to the following applications;
1) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 3rd respondent/applicant.
2) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 2nd respondent/applicant.
3) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 4th respondent/applicant.
4) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 5th respondent/applicant.
5) Application dated the 22nd July, 2025 by the 1st respondent/applicant
6) Application dated the 30th July, 2025 by the 6th respondent/applicant
(herein referred to as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th applications)
2. The 1st application is brought under Article 50 of the Constitution, Section 56 of the Anti- corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA), Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rules 1 and 2, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is premised on the grounds set out on the body of the same, and it is supported by the annexed affidavit sworn by Anne Murugi Njoroge. Through the application, the applicant has sought the following Orders;
1) Spent.
2) The Honourable Court does Review, set aside, Vary, and/or otherwise Discharge the preservation order issued on 9th July 2025 prohibiting the applicants, by themselves, through their agents, servants, or any other person from withdrawing, transferring, disposing or in any way dealing with funds in Account No.046000028901 at Family Bank in the name of King Construction Company Limited.
3) The applicant be allowed unlimited, unfettered or otherwise unhindered access to their bank accounts maintained at Family Bank Limited whether maintained by them individually, jointly, or severely.
4) Any other relief the court deems fit and just in the circumstances and
5) Costs of the application.
3. The applicant avers that the preservation Orders that were issued by this Honourable court, on the 9th July, 2025 were obtained using warrants issued without probable cause. That the Preservation order is pre mature as the award and execution of the tenders have not been impugned in any matter whatsoever before any court, Tribunal or other fora and that the alleged investigations by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Commission) have just started and are at the investigatory stage.
4. The applicant contends that in seeking the Preservatory orders, the Commission willfully and deliberately failed to disclose that it had no probable cause or reasonable basis to have sought for the said orders against the applicant on the alleged basis of abuse of position of trust, conflict of interest or any other prohibited activity in relation to the Tender for the various road works.
5. That the Commission was at all material times aware that all the monies received by the applicant from the various road agencies had been lawfully, regularly and legitimately paid to the applicants. Further, that the Commission with the Financial Reporting Centre had previously engaged the applicants’ bankers to have their respective accounts frozen or otherwise preserved and the approach to court is merely an afterthought and a choreographed attempt at intimidating, running out of businesses and financially crippling the applicants for ulterior motives.
6. The 2nd application has been brought under the same provisions as the 1st application and it seeks the following orders;
1) Spent.
2) The Honourable Court does Review, set aside, Vary, and/or otherwise Discharge the preservation orders issued on 9th July 2025 prohibiting the applicant, by themselves, through their agents, servants, or any other person from withdrawing, transferring, disposing or in any way dealing with funds in Account No.046000012937 at Family Bank in the name of King Realtors Limited.
3) The applicant be allowed unlimited, unfettered or otherwise unhindered access to their bank accounts maintained at Family Bank Limited whether maintained by them jointly, or severely.
4) Any other relief the court deems fit and just in the circumstances and
5) Costs of the application.
7. The grounds in support are largely the same. The applicant avers that there was lack of probable cause for warrants informing Preservation Order, and therefore, the application is fatally defective and the preservation orders ought not to have been issued.
8. The applicant avers that up to the date the Commission procured the order, it had not engaged any procurement officer, accounting officer or any other responsible officer of KeNHA, KURRA or KeRRA that were allegedly influenced to award the applicant the subject tenders. That it was not until the 22nd July, 2025 that the local media indicated that the Commission had proceeded to invite, summon or otherwise engage the various Director General for road agencies to record statements or otherwise provide information related to the alleged irregularity on the procurement process. That contrary to the Commission’s assertion, the applicant never received any monies or were the beneficiaries of any monies disbursed, transferred or otherwise paid by Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA).
9. It was the applicant’s further case that it is evident on the face of the procurement and resultant contractual works undertaken by the applicant under contract Nos. KeRRA/011/39/HB/MBT/39/ 51/CS/18/19-157 and KeRRA /011/39/ HB/KARA/39/51/PH/20/21-173 that any, and all monies it received were lawfully, regularly, contractually and legitimately due and owing arising from the provision of a service as per the prevailing public procurement mechanisms set out under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
10. That the respondent did not adduce any evidence that there was or has been interference with the procurement process at KeNHA and that, the Commission only belatedly attempted to summon or otherwise engage the procurement officers from KeNHA sometimes after 22nd of July, 2025 and if indeed there had been irregularity in any procurement process, they would have been the first ones to be interviewed.
11. The applicant also avers that the Commission has not indicated any linkage between the Hon. Kimani Wamatangi and the applicant, save for the fact that Directors of the applicant are his relatives. That the mere existence of a filial relationship between a serving public officer and corporation director or shareholder cannot be the basis of the presumption of any relationship whatsoever between the companies and the public servant.
12. That in the absence of any evidence that the procurement process was flawed, or the services procured for had not be provided as per the contract, or had been provided in a manner other than set out in the contract or payment had been effected in a manner other than as set out in the contract occasioning public loss of funds or misuse of public funds, the applicant is convinced that Commission has willfully orchestrated an assault on a law abiding corporate citizen who lawfully bid for contracts, provided for, and was paid for the services.
13. Further, that unless the preservation orders are set aside, the applicant will be unable to meet his statutory obligations when they fall due, pay salaries, settle various Bills which may lead to a litany of suits before various courts for breach of contract arising from its inability to settle bills for suppliers.
14. The 3rd application has been brought under Article 50 of the Constitution, Section 56(4) and (5) of the ACECA, Sections 1A,1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Through the application the applicant has sought the following orders;
1) Spent.
2) This Honourable court be pleased to discharge, vary and/or set aside the Preservation Order issued on 9th July, 2025 prohibiting the Applicant, their agents, servants or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, or in any other way dealing with funds in the bank account Number 046000029171 domiciled at Family Bank Limited in the name of Quick Fix Auto Garage Limited.
3) This Honourable Court be pleased to allow the Applicant unlimited access to their bank account Number 046000029171 domiciled at Family Bank Limited in the name of Quick Fix Auto Garage Limited.
4) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue any other relief deemed fit and just in the circumstances.
5) Costs of this application be borne by the Applicant/Respondent.”
15. The applicant has averred that in obtaining the preservation orders the Commission did not tender any evidence to demonstrate the culpability of the applicant other than the Motion filed before the lower court for warrants to investigate its accounts which were obtained through misrepresentation of facts to the effect that the 6th respondent owns the applicant herein.
16. That the Commission did not produce any iota of evidence to demonstrate that the funds held in the applicant’s bank account No. 046000029171 domiciled at Family bank limited are proceeds of crime or are public funds. It averred that the Commission being in possession of various bid documents submitted by the applicant to the various Government institutions is well aware that it did not flout any procurement laws and regulations, and if any such law were flouted, no particulars were demonstrated by the Commission before it obtained the preservation Orders against the applicant herein.
17. The applicant submitted that the PPADA has elaborate provisions for challenge and sanction to address cases of irregular, unlawful and corruptly procured and influenced tender awards. That such mechanisms include, but not limited to lodging proceedings for review and tender nullification to the Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board. Further, that complaints can be lodged to the Public Procurement and Regulatory Authority for investigations and action. As such, the Commission is not properly placed to handle, oversee or investigate any alleged procurement irregularities as the contracts entered into by the applicant and KeRRA were under the purview of the Public Procurement Review Board.
18. The applicant submitted that the contracts awarded to it were not awarded by the Senate’s Committee on Roads, Transportation and Housing, but by KeRRA and no link has been established between the 6th respondent being a member of the said committee and the award of contract by KeRRA, which operates independently of the Senate.
19. That the preservation orders by the Commission against the applicant’s bank account has completely halted the operations of the applicant without any justifiable cause as a consequence of which, the applicant finds itself unable to meet its day to day operations as well as other development , statutory and tax obligations .That the applicant is now faced with the risk of completely grounding it’s operations to a halt and being exposed to hefty debts and penalties from its employees, suppliers and Government Authorities.
20. The 4th application is by the 5th respondent and it’s brought under the same Provisions as the 3rd application and it seeks similar Orders for review, setting aside, varying and/or discharging the orders relating to account No. 046000028902 at Family bank and that the applicant be allowed unlimited access to that account.
21. The applicant avers that the Commission obtained warrants from the lower court to investigate the account claiming that the 5th respondent may have received irregular payments from KURA, KeRRA and KeNHA as a result of certain unidentified procurement irregularities between the period 2017 t0 2022 when the 6th respondent was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on roads and Transport.
22. That in a bid to convince the magistrate, the Commission alleged that the said companies are owned by the 6th respondent, yet, he is neither a Director nor a Shareholder in the 5th respondent. That in an interesting turn of events, the Commission admitted at the High Court that the 5th respondent was merely associated with the 6th respondent which amounted to two conflicting claims barely days apart.
23. It was the applicant’s contention that the said Orders were obtained without any basis being laid as the Commission has failed to identify the illegality committed by the 5th respondent in applying for, being awarded and executing any tender from any of the mentioned public entities; that neither of the public entities have ever lodged a complaint regarding any procurement irregularities touching on the 5th respondent ; no evidence was provided by the Commission indicating that the impugned yet unidentified tenders had been challenged anywhere and that the Commission has not provided any link between the 6th respondent and the award of any tenders to the 5th respondent.
24. The applicant states that it has never been summoned by the Commission to record a statement or provide any such document necessary to progress the purported investigations which leads to inescapable conclusion that the Commission is pursuing a vendetta against the 6th respondent, and the 5th respondent is simply collateral damage as there is no illegality that can be impugned on the 5th respondent.
25. That the preservation orders are tantamount to a liquidation order and when the same are issued on account of allegations which have not been subjected to a thorough legal process of ascertainment and judicial interpretation and determination, it amounts to unjustifiable violation of the right to access justice and the right to a fair hearing. That the 5th respondent who does not have other resources to rely on will be unable to meet statutory obligations including paying taxes and salaries, numerous contractual obligations exposing it to a risk of being sued.
26. The 5th application is by the 1st respondent. It is brought under Order 51 Rules 1 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It seeks to set aside the Orders that were issued on the 9th July 2025 with regard to Account No. 015000004190 at Family bank and allow the applicant to access the account, and that the 1st respondent be expunged from the proceedings.
27. The applicant avers that the 1st applicant has only one director, namely Joseph Mwaura Kimani and a Company Secretary by name Victor Arara Were. That no nexus has been established between the said company officials and the 6th respondent so as to make an inference of beneficial interest or conflict of interest.
28. The applicant states that any payment received by the 1st respondent from KeRRA, KURA and/or KeNHA were lawful, legitimately due and arising from contracts awarded and executed as per the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 and the regulations made thereunder. That there are elaborate regulations for challenge and sanctions to address cases of irregularity, unlawful and corruptly procured and influenced tender awards through the Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board and can also be lodged to Public Procurement and Regulatory Authority.
29. That the applicant is aggrieved by the grant of the said Orders as the orders are threatening the commercial viability of the 1st respondent and it is exposing it to the likelihood of defaulting on numerous statutory obligations which will ultimately lead to the institution of solvency proceedings.
30. The 6th application is by the 6th respondent. It is brought under Articles 35 and 50 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Access to Information Act. Through the application, the applicant has sought for an order directing the Commission to avail to the 6th respondent and/or to court, the Preliminary investigations report alluded to in the application dated the 8th July, 2025.
31. He avers that for the last one year, he has been a target of harassment and victimization by the Commission under the guise of conducting legitimate investigations into allegations of corruption, which harassment has since culminated in the filing of numerous miscellaneous applications before the Magistrates’ court and this court, purportedly seeking orders to assist in investigations.
32. That in both applications before the Lower court and this court, the Commission alluded to preliminary investigations that had allegedly established that the 6th respondent engaged in some procurement irregularities which resulted in the award of tenders to the 1st to 5th respondents between 2017 to 2022 when the 6th respondent was a Senator and a member of the Senate Roads Committee.
33. The applicant contends that even if the Commission has referred to the said preliminary investigations and used their existence to obtain the orders from the court, they have to date failed to provide a report of the said investigations to this court, let alone to the 6th respondent. That the said report is crucial to the advancement of the 6th respondent’s rebuttal or any cause of action meant to protect his rights because the assertions made by the Commission are irrational and lacking in reason for the reasons that the Senate Standing Committee on Roads and Transport does not award any tenders nor does it have oversight authority over KeRRA, KURA or KeNHA during any procurement process.
34. The applicant avers that the Commission’s applications have been based on conjecture and that even the remote reference to preliminary investigations is abstract and that there was no basis upon which the court was moved to issue the orders.
35. That the orders have caused near irreversible damage to the 6th respondent in that he has been vilified and maligned in the media in a manner that has affected his standing amongst the residents of Kiambu County, and the Country in general. Further, that the Commission has used the grant of the said orders to stalk and surveil the 6th respondent and his family in a manner that has caused great emotional distress to the family.
36. That to prevent the ongoing harassment, victimization and violation of the 6th respondent’s rights, the alleged preliminary investigations report should be furnished to this court. He avers that Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees him a right to access information needed to protect his rights and hence this application. Further, that the production of that report will advance the national values and principles of good governance and in particular, transparency and accountability, and there is no identifiable danger in the disclosure of the said information sought and no justification has been provided for the secrecy with regards to the alleged preliminary investigations and the report.
37. The Commission filed a replying affidavit sworn by Danso Siba on the 21st August, 2025 who is a member of the team that conducted investigations in respect to the matters raised herein, and in opposition to all the applications. Through the deponent, the Commission avers that public interest in sustaining the preservation orders supersedes the respondents’ perceived danger of law suits and debts, and the Commission has established a nexus between the 1st and the 6th respondents by demonstrating through bank documents that the 6th respondent is the sole signatory to the 1st respondent’s bank account.
38. That in response to the 1st respondent’s assertion that there are provisions to challenge irregular procurement and tender awards, the Commission states that the investigations herein relates to conflict of interest which is a corruption offence punishable by law and that investigations on corruption offences related to procurement are not dependent on the outcome of the Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board as the 1st respondent seems to suggest.
39. The Commission contends that no good reason has been given to the court to justify the setting aside of the preservation orders as the same were granted for a good cause to preserve the monies for the eventual satisfaction of a decree since the respondents may interfere or frustrate the decree. The 6th respondent being the sole signatory to the subject bank accounts is a necessary party as the orders herein prohibit him from withdrawing monies from the said accounts and removing him from the suit will amount to an injustice.
40. In response to the 2nd respondent’s averments that warrants were issued without a reasonable cause, the commission states that the applicants filed applications before the lower court challenging the issuance of the warrants, but the same were heard and a ruling was delivered on the 4th August, 2025 in favour of the Commission. That the tenders alluded to were awarded between 2017 and 2022 when the 6th respondent was a member of the Senate committee and that the evidence of the linkage between the 6th respondent and the other respondents was available to court at the time the orders were issued.
41. That by the time the preservation orders were issued, investigations had just commenced and that statements of any person aiding in investigations are recorded at any stage of investigations, preservation orders notwithstanding. On the allegation that the Commission has no evidence of illegality, the Commission states that under Section 56 of the ACECA the threshold for granting of the orders is set out and the Commission need not present the final finding of an illegality since the order is temporary to preserve the assets for a short time.
42. On the 3rd respondent’s assertions that his right under Article 50 of the Constitution has been violated, the Commission avers that the Article provides for a dispute to be resolved by the application of the law, and decided in a fair and public hearing before a court, or another independent and impartial tribunal or body and the provision applies to a hearing after investigations have been concluded and findings made. That the Commission shall bring a suit against the 3rd respondent and it will be accorded adequate time, facilities and opportunity to challenge and/or adduce evidence as prescribed by the law.
43. The Commission contends that the directors of the respondents were invited by the Commission to record statements and shed light on the matters under investigations on conflict of interest but they declined to appear and requested to defer to far off dates only for them to file the applications herein.
44. That the preliminary findings of the investigations have been disclosed in the Commission’s application before the court and in the replying affidavit filed in Petition 455 of 2025 which contains the preliminary findings awaiting the final outcome of the investigations. That the 6th respondent has failed to co-operate with the Commission by declining to provide the passwords of his mobile phones for purposes of electronic investigations thereby frustrating further investigations. Further, the Commission issued a notice dated 30th May, 2025 to the 6th respondent to explain sources of his wealth of Ksh.12,656,000 and USD13,353.00 retrieved from his premises during the search but to date he has not yet complied with the notice.
45. That the 4th respondent has severally been given an opportunity to appear before the Commission and record a statement and shed light on the issues under investigations but has failed to appear.
46. Regarding the linkage of the 6th respondent with the other respondents, the Commission states that according to the investigations, the 6th respondent was the main founding director of the respondents by virtue of having commanding shares at the time of incorporation of the respondents although at some point he relinquished the directorship. That the 6th respondent remained a mandatory signatory to the bank accounts and has been actively transacting in the said accounts as such, the ultimate beneficial owner.
47. As to the link between the 6th respondent and award of tender to the 5th respondent, the Commission states that the 6th respondent participated in providing oversight to Government agencies which at the same time were awarding tenders to private companies which he incorporated and/or companies where he is a beneficial owner and/or companies whose directors are his close family members and where he is a bank signatory.
48. That the respondents cannot allege to be unable to meet their statutory obligations as the order does not extend to the running of their businesses, but only to the withdrawing of the monies in the bank accounts and the order does not stop the respondents from sourcing monies from elsewhere or opening other bank accounts.
49. In response to the assertion that the Commission obtained warrants for a period in 2025 when the investigations period is 2017-2022, the Commission avers that it is also investigating allegations of un explained wealth under Section 26 and 55 of the ACECA which information was disclosed at the time of applying for the warrants.
50. The Commission avers that unless the orders herein continue to subsist, the respondents will withdraw, transfer, dispose of money in order to defeat the course of justice.
51. The applications were disposed of by way of written submissions.
52. The 1st respondent submitted on the threshold for issuance of the preservation orders under Section 56 (1) and (2) of the ACECA and the burden of proof and stated that an Exparte applicant who approaches the court under this Section of the law is required to establish reasonable suspicion that the property or monies in issue were obtained through corrupt means. That such reasonable suspicion must be grounded on existing facts and not on mere allegations, conjecture or malice. Reliance was placed on the case of Emmanuel Suipanu Siyang Vs Republic (2013) KEHC 868 (KLR) on the question of reasonable suspicion and on the case of Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission Vs Andrew Biketi T/A Mukuyu Petroleum Dealers (2019) KEHC 8946 (KLR).
53. It was the 1st respondent’s contention that the Commission failed to provide any factual basis upon which it’s claim against it is hinged. That the Commission has also failed to demonstrate any connection between the 5th respondent and the 1st respondent that would justify the alleged collusion.
54. That the payments that the 1st respondent received from KeRRA, KURA and KeNHA were lawfully due, arising from duly awarded contracts executed in full compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 and the attendant regulations. That in the absence of any evidence of involvement of the 1st respondent in any corrupt conduct, this court should not delve into the source of the funds received by the 1st respondent in its accounts. Reliance was placed on the case of Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission Vs Equity Bank Limited & 4 others (2016) KEHC 5028 KLR.
55. That the preservation orders were obtained on the basis of suspicion and the misconceived attempt to impute the alleged wrongdoing on the 6th respondent/applicant to the applicant company, and the applicant has rebutted these allegations by placing before this court unimpeachable evidence of its ownership, corporate independence, and the legitimate source of funds. Further, that a company is a distinct legal entity under the well-established principle in Salmon Vs Salmon & company Limited (1897) AC 22 which has been consistently applied in our jurisdiction.
56. On the part of the 2nd respondent, it was submitted that there are no allegations against the 2nd respondent as there is no mention of any impugned tender or corrupt conduct specific to the 2nd respondent, but instead, the Commission relies on vague familial links to the 6th respondent without evidence of influence or impropriety. That the Commission has failed to provide any specific allegation of irregularity in tender procurement, award and execution of works by the 2nd respondent, any irregularity in any sums, amounts or any other transactions undertaken in the bank accounts of the 2nd respondent, any evidence of corrupt practices or conflict of interest.
57. That there was material non-disclosure by the Commission when it obtained the preservation orders by failing to disclose that the 6th respondent resigned from related companies, predating any impugned contracts; there was no prior engagement with procuring entities to verify irregularities and that the preliminary report was merely an affidavit from Constitutional Petition No. E 455 of 2025 lacking originating complaints ,witness statements, forensic analysis or investigator notes thus constituting a misrepresentation. Reliance was placed on the case of Manfred Walter Schmitt & another Vs Attorney General & others (2014) eKLR as cited in Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission Vs National Bank of Kenya & another (2017) eKLR.
58. The 2nd respondent/applicant states that there is evidence undermining reasonable suspicion, in that, the ODPP reviewed the EACC’S inquiry file received on the 28th July 2025 which recommended charges including conflict of interest, unlawful acquisition of public property and acquisition of proceeds of crime and identified critical evidential gaps that require to be covered by way of further investigations and directed the file’s resubmission to the Commission. That this rejection by the ODPP of the file for insufficiency of evidence is compelling proof that the threshold under Section 56(1) of the ACECA has not been met.
59. The 3rd respondent/applicant submitted that the Commission did not meet the legal threshold for issuance of the preservation orders under Section 56 of the ACECA as its application contained no information regarding the balances in these accounts, the sources of the funds in each account or any analysis connecting specific deposits to alleged corrupt practices.
60. That the preservation application was devoid of specific impugned tender processes or even a hint of procurement irregularity that may have formed the substratum of reasonable suspicion, claims of inflated contract values, allegations of sub- standard work or delivery of or any interact
[...truncated]
1) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 3rd respondent/applicant.
2) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 2nd respondent/applicant.
3) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 4th respondent/applicant.
4) Application dated the 23rd July, 2025 by the 5th respondent/applicant.
5) Application dated the 22nd July, 2025 by the 1st respondent/applicant
6) Application dated the 30th July, 2025 by the 6th respondent/applicant
(herein referred to as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th applications)
2. The 1st application is brought under Article 50 of the Constitution, Section 56 of the Anti- corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA), Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rules 1 and 2, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is premised on the grounds set out on the body of the same, and it is supported by the annexed affidavit sworn by Anne Murugi Njoroge. Through the application, the applicant has sought the following Orders;
1) Spent.
2) The Honourable Court does Review, set aside, Vary, and/or otherwise Discharge the preservation order issued on 9th July 2025 prohibiting the applicants, by themselves, through their agents, servants, or any other person from withdrawing, transferring, disposing or in any way dealing with funds in Account No.046000028901 at Family Bank in the name of King Construction Company Limited.
3) The applicant be allowed unlimited, unfettered or otherwise unhindered access to their bank accounts maintained at Family Bank Limited whether maintained by them individually, jointly, or severely.
4) Any other relief the court deems fit and just in the circumstances and
5) Costs of the application.
3. The applicant avers that the preservation Orders that were issued by this Honourable court, on the 9th July, 2025 were obtained using warrants issued without probable cause. That the Preservation order is pre mature as the award and execution of the tenders have not been impugned in any matter whatsoever before any court, Tribunal or other fora and that the alleged investigations by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Commission) have just started and are at the investigatory stage.
4. The applicant contends that in seeking the Preservatory orders, the Commission willfully and deliberately failed to disclose that it had no probable cause or reasonable basis to have sought for the said orders against the applicant on the alleged basis of abuse of position of trust, conflict of interest or any other prohibited activity in relation to the Tender for the various road works.
5. That the Commission was at all material times aware that all the monies received by the applicant from the various road agencies had been lawfully, regularly and legitimately paid to the applicants. Further, that the Commission with the Financial Reporting Centre had previously engaged the applicants’ bankers to have their respective accounts frozen or otherwise preserved and the approach to court is merely an afterthought and a choreographed attempt at intimidating, running out of businesses and financially crippling the applicants for ulterior motives.
6. The 2nd application has been brought under the same provisions as the 1st application and it seeks the following orders;
1) Spent.
2) The Honourable Court does Review, set aside, Vary, and/or otherwise Discharge the preservation orders issued on 9th July 2025 prohibiting the applicant, by themselves, through their agents, servants, or any other person from withdrawing, transferring, disposing or in any way dealing with funds in Account No.046000012937 at Family Bank in the name of King Realtors Limited.
3) The applicant be allowed unlimited, unfettered or otherwise unhindered access to their bank accounts maintained at Family Bank Limited whether maintained by them jointly, or severely.
4) Any other relief the court deems fit and just in the circumstances and
5) Costs of the application.
7. The grounds in support are largely the same. The applicant avers that there was lack of probable cause for warrants informing Preservation Order, and therefore, the application is fatally defective and the preservation orders ought not to have been issued.
8. The applicant avers that up to the date the Commission procured the order, it had not engaged any procurement officer, accounting officer or any other responsible officer of KeNHA, KURRA or KeRRA that were allegedly influenced to award the applicant the subject tenders. That it was not until the 22nd July, 2025 that the local media indicated that the Commission had proceeded to invite, summon or otherwise engage the various Director General for road agencies to record statements or otherwise provide information related to the alleged irregularity on the procurement process. That contrary to the Commission’s assertion, the applicant never received any monies or were the beneficiaries of any monies disbursed, transferred or otherwise paid by Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA).
9. It was the applicant’s further case that it is evident on the face of the procurement and resultant contractual works undertaken by the applicant under contract Nos. KeRRA/011/39/HB/MBT/39/ 51/CS/18/19-157 and KeRRA /011/39/ HB/KARA/39/51/PH/20/21-173 that any, and all monies it received were lawfully, regularly, contractually and legitimately due and owing arising from the provision of a service as per the prevailing public procurement mechanisms set out under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
10. That the respondent did not adduce any evidence that there was or has been interference with the procurement process at KeNHA and that, the Commission only belatedly attempted to summon or otherwise engage the procurement officers from KeNHA sometimes after 22nd of July, 2025 and if indeed there had been irregularity in any procurement process, they would have been the first ones to be interviewed.
11. The applicant also avers that the Commission has not indicated any linkage between the Hon. Kimani Wamatangi and the applicant, save for the fact that Directors of the applicant are his relatives. That the mere existence of a filial relationship between a serving public officer and corporation director or shareholder cannot be the basis of the presumption of any relationship whatsoever between the companies and the public servant.
12. That in the absence of any evidence that the procurement process was flawed, or the services procured for had not be provided as per the contract, or had been provided in a manner other than set out in the contract or payment had been effected in a manner other than as set out in the contract occasioning public loss of funds or misuse of public funds, the applicant is convinced that Commission has willfully orchestrated an assault on a law abiding corporate citizen who lawfully bid for contracts, provided for, and was paid for the services.
13. Further, that unless the preservation orders are set aside, the applicant will be unable to meet his statutory obligations when they fall due, pay salaries, settle various Bills which may lead to a litany of suits before various courts for breach of contract arising from its inability to settle bills for suppliers.
14. The 3rd application has been brought under Article 50 of the Constitution, Section 56(4) and (5) of the ACECA, Sections 1A,1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Through the application the applicant has sought the following orders;
1) Spent.
2) This Honourable court be pleased to discharge, vary and/or set aside the Preservation Order issued on 9th July, 2025 prohibiting the Applicant, their agents, servants or any other persons from withdrawing, transferring, disposing, or in any other way dealing with funds in the bank account Number 046000029171 domiciled at Family Bank Limited in the name of Quick Fix Auto Garage Limited.
3) This Honourable Court be pleased to allow the Applicant unlimited access to their bank account Number 046000029171 domiciled at Family Bank Limited in the name of Quick Fix Auto Garage Limited.
4) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue any other relief deemed fit and just in the circumstances.
5) Costs of this application be borne by the Applicant/Respondent.”
15. The applicant has averred that in obtaining the preservation orders the Commission did not tender any evidence to demonstrate the culpability of the applicant other than the Motion filed before the lower court for warrants to investigate its accounts which were obtained through misrepresentation of facts to the effect that the 6th respondent owns the applicant herein.
16. That the Commission did not produce any iota of evidence to demonstrate that the funds held in the applicant’s bank account No. 046000029171 domiciled at Family bank limited are proceeds of crime or are public funds. It averred that the Commission being in possession of various bid documents submitted by the applicant to the various Government institutions is well aware that it did not flout any procurement laws and regulations, and if any such law were flouted, no particulars were demonstrated by the Commission before it obtained the preservation Orders against the applicant herein.
17. The applicant submitted that the PPADA has elaborate provisions for challenge and sanction to address cases of irregular, unlawful and corruptly procured and influenced tender awards. That such mechanisms include, but not limited to lodging proceedings for review and tender nullification to the Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board. Further, that complaints can be lodged to the Public Procurement and Regulatory Authority for investigations and action. As such, the Commission is not properly placed to handle, oversee or investigate any alleged procurement irregularities as the contracts entered into by the applicant and KeRRA were under the purview of the Public Procurement Review Board.
18. The applicant submitted that the contracts awarded to it were not awarded by the Senate’s Committee on Roads, Transportation and Housing, but by KeRRA and no link has been established between the 6th respondent being a member of the said committee and the award of contract by KeRRA, which operates independently of the Senate.
19. That the preservation orders by the Commission against the applicant’s bank account has completely halted the operations of the applicant without any justifiable cause as a consequence of which, the applicant finds itself unable to meet its day to day operations as well as other development , statutory and tax obligations .That the applicant is now faced with the risk of completely grounding it’s operations to a halt and being exposed to hefty debts and penalties from its employees, suppliers and Government Authorities.
20. The 4th application is by the 5th respondent and it’s brought under the same Provisions as the 3rd application and it seeks similar Orders for review, setting aside, varying and/or discharging the orders relating to account No. 046000028902 at Family bank and that the applicant be allowed unlimited access to that account.
21. The applicant avers that the Commission obtained warrants from the lower court to investigate the account claiming that the 5th respondent may have received irregular payments from KURA, KeRRA and KeNHA as a result of certain unidentified procurement irregularities between the period 2017 t0 2022 when the 6th respondent was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on roads and Transport.
22. That in a bid to convince the magistrate, the Commission alleged that the said companies are owned by the 6th respondent, yet, he is neither a Director nor a Shareholder in the 5th respondent. That in an interesting turn of events, the Commission admitted at the High Court that the 5th respondent was merely associated with the 6th respondent which amounted to two conflicting claims barely days apart.
23. It was the applicant’s contention that the said Orders were obtained without any basis being laid as the Commission has failed to identify the illegality committed by the 5th respondent in applying for, being awarded and executing any tender from any of the mentioned public entities; that neither of the public entities have ever lodged a complaint regarding any procurement irregularities touching on the 5th respondent ; no evidence was provided by the Commission indicating that the impugned yet unidentified tenders had been challenged anywhere and that the Commission has not provided any link between the 6th respondent and the award of any tenders to the 5th respondent.
24. The applicant states that it has never been summoned by the Commission to record a statement or provide any such document necessary to progress the purported investigations which leads to inescapable conclusion that the Commission is pursuing a vendetta against the 6th respondent, and the 5th respondent is simply collateral damage as there is no illegality that can be impugned on the 5th respondent.
25. That the preservation orders are tantamount to a liquidation order and when the same are issued on account of allegations which have not been subjected to a thorough legal process of ascertainment and judicial interpretation and determination, it amounts to unjustifiable violation of the right to access justice and the right to a fair hearing. That the 5th respondent who does not have other resources to rely on will be unable to meet statutory obligations including paying taxes and salaries, numerous contractual obligations exposing it to a risk of being sued.
26. The 5th application is by the 1st respondent. It is brought under Order 51 Rules 1 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It seeks to set aside the Orders that were issued on the 9th July 2025 with regard to Account No. 015000004190 at Family bank and allow the applicant to access the account, and that the 1st respondent be expunged from the proceedings.
27. The applicant avers that the 1st applicant has only one director, namely Joseph Mwaura Kimani and a Company Secretary by name Victor Arara Were. That no nexus has been established between the said company officials and the 6th respondent so as to make an inference of beneficial interest or conflict of interest.
28. The applicant states that any payment received by the 1st respondent from KeRRA, KURA and/or KeNHA were lawful, legitimately due and arising from contracts awarded and executed as per the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 and the regulations made thereunder. That there are elaborate regulations for challenge and sanctions to address cases of irregularity, unlawful and corruptly procured and influenced tender awards through the Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board and can also be lodged to Public Procurement and Regulatory Authority.
29. That the applicant is aggrieved by the grant of the said Orders as the orders are threatening the commercial viability of the 1st respondent and it is exposing it to the likelihood of defaulting on numerous statutory obligations which will ultimately lead to the institution of solvency proceedings.
30. The 6th application is by the 6th respondent. It is brought under Articles 35 and 50 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Access to Information Act. Through the application, the applicant has sought for an order directing the Commission to avail to the 6th respondent and/or to court, the Preliminary investigations report alluded to in the application dated the 8th July, 2025.
31. He avers that for the last one year, he has been a target of harassment and victimization by the Commission under the guise of conducting legitimate investigations into allegations of corruption, which harassment has since culminated in the filing of numerous miscellaneous applications before the Magistrates’ court and this court, purportedly seeking orders to assist in investigations.
32. That in both applications before the Lower court and this court, the Commission alluded to preliminary investigations that had allegedly established that the 6th respondent engaged in some procurement irregularities which resulted in the award of tenders to the 1st to 5th respondents between 2017 to 2022 when the 6th respondent was a Senator and a member of the Senate Roads Committee.
33. The applicant contends that even if the Commission has referred to the said preliminary investigations and used their existence to obtain the orders from the court, they have to date failed to provide a report of the said investigations to this court, let alone to the 6th respondent. That the said report is crucial to the advancement of the 6th respondent’s rebuttal or any cause of action meant to protect his rights because the assertions made by the Commission are irrational and lacking in reason for the reasons that the Senate Standing Committee on Roads and Transport does not award any tenders nor does it have oversight authority over KeRRA, KURA or KeNHA during any procurement process.
34. The applicant avers that the Commission’s applications have been based on conjecture and that even the remote reference to preliminary investigations is abstract and that there was no basis upon which the court was moved to issue the orders.
35. That the orders have caused near irreversible damage to the 6th respondent in that he has been vilified and maligned in the media in a manner that has affected his standing amongst the residents of Kiambu County, and the Country in general. Further, that the Commission has used the grant of the said orders to stalk and surveil the 6th respondent and his family in a manner that has caused great emotional distress to the family.
36. That to prevent the ongoing harassment, victimization and violation of the 6th respondent’s rights, the alleged preliminary investigations report should be furnished to this court. He avers that Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees him a right to access information needed to protect his rights and hence this application. Further, that the production of that report will advance the national values and principles of good governance and in particular, transparency and accountability, and there is no identifiable danger in the disclosure of the said information sought and no justification has been provided for the secrecy with regards to the alleged preliminary investigations and the report.
37. The Commission filed a replying affidavit sworn by Danso Siba on the 21st August, 2025 who is a member of the team that conducted investigations in respect to the matters raised herein, and in opposition to all the applications. Through the deponent, the Commission avers that public interest in sustaining the preservation orders supersedes the respondents’ perceived danger of law suits and debts, and the Commission has established a nexus between the 1st and the 6th respondents by demonstrating through bank documents that the 6th respondent is the sole signatory to the 1st respondent’s bank account.
38. That in response to the 1st respondent’s assertion that there are provisions to challenge irregular procurement and tender awards, the Commission states that the investigations herein relates to conflict of interest which is a corruption offence punishable by law and that investigations on corruption offences related to procurement are not dependent on the outcome of the Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board as the 1st respondent seems to suggest.
39. The Commission contends that no good reason has been given to the court to justify the setting aside of the preservation orders as the same were granted for a good cause to preserve the monies for the eventual satisfaction of a decree since the respondents may interfere or frustrate the decree. The 6th respondent being the sole signatory to the subject bank accounts is a necessary party as the orders herein prohibit him from withdrawing monies from the said accounts and removing him from the suit will amount to an injustice.
40. In response to the 2nd respondent’s averments that warrants were issued without a reasonable cause, the commission states that the applicants filed applications before the lower court challenging the issuance of the warrants, but the same were heard and a ruling was delivered on the 4th August, 2025 in favour of the Commission. That the tenders alluded to were awarded between 2017 and 2022 when the 6th respondent was a member of the Senate committee and that the evidence of the linkage between the 6th respondent and the other respondents was available to court at the time the orders were issued.
41. That by the time the preservation orders were issued, investigations had just commenced and that statements of any person aiding in investigations are recorded at any stage of investigations, preservation orders notwithstanding. On the allegation that the Commission has no evidence of illegality, the Commission states that under Section 56 of the ACECA the threshold for granting of the orders is set out and the Commission need not present the final finding of an illegality since the order is temporary to preserve the assets for a short time.
42. On the 3rd respondent’s assertions that his right under Article 50 of the Constitution has been violated, the Commission avers that the Article provides for a dispute to be resolved by the application of the law, and decided in a fair and public hearing before a court, or another independent and impartial tribunal or body and the provision applies to a hearing after investigations have been concluded and findings made. That the Commission shall bring a suit against the 3rd respondent and it will be accorded adequate time, facilities and opportunity to challenge and/or adduce evidence as prescribed by the law.
43. The Commission contends that the directors of the respondents were invited by the Commission to record statements and shed light on the matters under investigations on conflict of interest but they declined to appear and requested to defer to far off dates only for them to file the applications herein.
44. That the preliminary findings of the investigations have been disclosed in the Commission’s application before the court and in the replying affidavit filed in Petition 455 of 2025 which contains the preliminary findings awaiting the final outcome of the investigations. That the 6th respondent has failed to co-operate with the Commission by declining to provide the passwords of his mobile phones for purposes of electronic investigations thereby frustrating further investigations. Further, the Commission issued a notice dated 30th May, 2025 to the 6th respondent to explain sources of his wealth of Ksh.12,656,000 and USD13,353.00 retrieved from his premises during the search but to date he has not yet complied with the notice.
45. That the 4th respondent has severally been given an opportunity to appear before the Commission and record a statement and shed light on the issues under investigations but has failed to appear.
46. Regarding the linkage of the 6th respondent with the other respondents, the Commission states that according to the investigations, the 6th respondent was the main founding director of the respondents by virtue of having commanding shares at the time of incorporation of the respondents although at some point he relinquished the directorship. That the 6th respondent remained a mandatory signatory to the bank accounts and has been actively transacting in the said accounts as such, the ultimate beneficial owner.
47. As to the link between the 6th respondent and award of tender to the 5th respondent, the Commission states that the 6th respondent participated in providing oversight to Government agencies which at the same time were awarding tenders to private companies which he incorporated and/or companies where he is a beneficial owner and/or companies whose directors are his close family members and where he is a bank signatory.
48. That the respondents cannot allege to be unable to meet their statutory obligations as the order does not extend to the running of their businesses, but only to the withdrawing of the monies in the bank accounts and the order does not stop the respondents from sourcing monies from elsewhere or opening other bank accounts.
49. In response to the assertion that the Commission obtained warrants for a period in 2025 when the investigations period is 2017-2022, the Commission avers that it is also investigating allegations of un explained wealth under Section 26 and 55 of the ACECA which information was disclosed at the time of applying for the warrants.
50. The Commission avers that unless the orders herein continue to subsist, the respondents will withdraw, transfer, dispose of money in order to defeat the course of justice.
51. The applications were disposed of by way of written submissions.
52. The 1st respondent submitted on the threshold for issuance of the preservation orders under Section 56 (1) and (2) of the ACECA and the burden of proof and stated that an Exparte applicant who approaches the court under this Section of the law is required to establish reasonable suspicion that the property or monies in issue were obtained through corrupt means. That such reasonable suspicion must be grounded on existing facts and not on mere allegations, conjecture or malice. Reliance was placed on the case of Emmanuel Suipanu Siyang Vs Republic (2013) KEHC 868 (KLR) on the question of reasonable suspicion and on the case of Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission Vs Andrew Biketi T/A Mukuyu Petroleum Dealers (2019) KEHC 8946 (KLR).
53. It was the 1st respondent’s contention that the Commission failed to provide any factual basis upon which it’s claim against it is hinged. That the Commission has also failed to demonstrate any connection between the 5th respondent and the 1st respondent that would justify the alleged collusion.
54. That the payments that the 1st respondent received from KeRRA, KURA and KeNHA were lawfully due, arising from duly awarded contracts executed in full compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 and the attendant regulations. That in the absence of any evidence of involvement of the 1st respondent in any corrupt conduct, this court should not delve into the source of the funds received by the 1st respondent in its accounts. Reliance was placed on the case of Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission Vs Equity Bank Limited & 4 others (2016) KEHC 5028 KLR.
55. That the preservation orders were obtained on the basis of suspicion and the misconceived attempt to impute the alleged wrongdoing on the 6th respondent/applicant to the applicant company, and the applicant has rebutted these allegations by placing before this court unimpeachable evidence of its ownership, corporate independence, and the legitimate source of funds. Further, that a company is a distinct legal entity under the well-established principle in Salmon Vs Salmon & company Limited (1897) AC 22 which has been consistently applied in our jurisdiction.
56. On the part of the 2nd respondent, it was submitted that there are no allegations against the 2nd respondent as there is no mention of any impugned tender or corrupt conduct specific to the 2nd respondent, but instead, the Commission relies on vague familial links to the 6th respondent without evidence of influence or impropriety. That the Commission has failed to provide any specific allegation of irregularity in tender procurement, award and execution of works by the 2nd respondent, any irregularity in any sums, amounts or any other transactions undertaken in the bank accounts of the 2nd respondent, any evidence of corrupt practices or conflict of interest.
57. That there was material non-disclosure by the Commission when it obtained the preservation orders by failing to disclose that the 6th respondent resigned from related companies, predating any impugned contracts; there was no prior engagement with procuring entities to verify irregularities and that the preliminary report was merely an affidavit from Constitutional Petition No. E 455 of 2025 lacking originating complaints ,witness statements, forensic analysis or investigator notes thus constituting a misrepresentation. Reliance was placed on the case of Manfred Walter Schmitt & another Vs Attorney General & others (2014) eKLR as cited in Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission Vs National Bank of Kenya & another (2017) eKLR.
58. The 2nd respondent/applicant states that there is evidence undermining reasonable suspicion, in that, the ODPP reviewed the EACC’S inquiry file received on the 28th July 2025 which recommended charges including conflict of interest, unlawful acquisition of public property and acquisition of proceeds of crime and identified critical evidential gaps that require to be covered by way of further investigations and directed the file’s resubmission to the Commission. That this rejection by the ODPP of the file for insufficiency of evidence is compelling proof that the threshold under Section 56(1) of the ACECA has not been met.
59. The 3rd respondent/applicant submitted that the Commission did not meet the legal threshold for issuance of the preservation orders under Section 56 of the ACECA as its application contained no information regarding the balances in these accounts, the sources of the funds in each account or any analysis connecting specific deposits to alleged corrupt practices.
60. That the preservation application was devoid of specific impugned tender processes or even a hint of procurement irregularity that may have formed the substratum of reasonable suspicion, claims of inflated contract values, allegations of sub- standard work or delivery of or any interact
[...truncated]