Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Nyakundi & 3 others

that disclosure of the depositors in the identified accounts is critical in establishing whether the said deposits were tainted with illegality. He states further that the deposits were made in the course of the business at the 3rd defendant’s hotels and it will be difficult of the depositors to cooperate and give evidence unless summons are issued. 3. The plaintiff has opposed the application through grounds of opposition dated 17-11-2025. It states that the search warrants and seizure of the documents were done pursuant to mandate given to it vide Articles 79 and 252(a) and (d) of the Constitution and Section 55 of Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) and Section 11 of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act. The plaintiff states further that it filed and served the defendants with documents ranging from pages 1 to 11023 which are adequate for purposes of filing their respective defences and that the application lacks legal or factual basis and is bad in law, pre-mature, misconceived and incompetent. 4. I have read the submissions of the defendants dated 3-12-2025 and those of the plaintiff dated 9-12-2025. It is not denied that the plaintiff searched and seized documents from the defendants pursuant to valid and lawful court orders and warrants. The defendants have not faulted the process of the search and seizure of the documents. All that they claim is that the documents are necessary for their defences. 5. I have looked at the voluminous documents filed by the plaintiff in this matter which the defendants have confirmed were served on them. Some of the documents were seized from the defendants while others were obtained from the banks and mobile money transfer service providers. Others were correspondences between the plaintiff and the defendants. The documents are obviously meant to be evidential exhibits in this matter. The legality of the process of obtaining them having not been faulted, it is my view that the application is premature and unmerited. 6. The plaintiff is seeking to have the various assets registered to or belonging to the defendants forfeited to the government and returning the documents at this point would be putting the cart before the horse. The rights of the defendants to keep whatever documents they are complaining about can only crystalize after this court is done with hearing and determination of the suit and in favour of the defendants. In any event, the defendants have not identified which specific documents they are seeking to be released to them. This court cannot make a blanket order for the return of documents as doing so will be tantamount to convoluting the proceedings and opening a long inquiry which this court is not ready to do. 7. On the disclosure of the depositors, the court is at a loss as to what goal the defendants want or intend to achieve through this prayer. The 1st defendant has deponed at paragraph 11 of the supporting affidavit that the deposits were mainly made by the 3rd defendant’s customers. I also believe that the deposits in the bank accounts were made by people known to the defendants and where such depositors are not known to the defendants, they can be identified through information from their bankers. The defendants are able to get the details they seek from their banks and mobile money transfer service providers. Parties cannot use the court to help them gather evidence in the manner the defendants are intending to do. The defendants will be at liberty to seek witness summons from the court once they identify the witnesses themselves. 8. In view of the above, I do not see any merits in this application. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. 9. In order to progress this matter, the defendants are orders to file their defence and documents with the next fourteen days from the date of this ruling. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2512/eng@2026-02-27 2

page 2 of 3

B.M. MUSYOKI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT. Ruling delivered in presence of Miss Kisabei for the plaintiff and Mr. Kinyua for the defendants. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2512/eng@2026-02-27 3

page 3 of 3