High Court 11651 of 2026

REPUBLIC THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENT RULING 1. The applicant moved this court by way of a Chamber Summons dated 13th August 2025 expressed to be brought under Rule 3 of the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules made Pursuant to Section n10m of the Judicature Act, Cap 8 of the Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the Law, Sections 362-369 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Articles 25(c), 31, 35, 40, 47, 50, 159(2), 165(6)-(7) of the Constitution, Section 134 of the Evidence Act, Sections 6 & 60 of the Advocates Act for the following ORDERS: a). Spent. b). THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and/or enforcement of the orders issued on 11th August 2025 in Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E3007 of 2025, in so far as they authorise the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to investigate, inspect, obtain or carry away the Applicant's bank account records, statements and related documents for Account Nos. i. 4703090028 (NCBA Bank, Upper Hill Branch) and ii. 0140000423 (Access Bank PLC, City Hall Way Branch). c). THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to call for and examine the record of proceedings and the orders issued on 11th August 2025 in Milimani Chief Magistrate's Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E3007 of 2025, for the purpose of satisfying itself NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 2

page 2 of 45

as to the correctness, legality, propriety and regularity of the said orders. d). THAT upon such examination, the Honourable Court be pleased to revise, vacate or set aside the said orders in so far as they authorise the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to investigate, inspect, obtain and carry away the Applicant's bank account records, statements and related documents for the account numbers listed; e). THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to make any further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient in the interests of justice. f). THAT the costs of and incidental to this application be provided for. 2. The application is supported by the grounds set out on the face of the application and the annexed Affidavit of JOHN KIPROTICH KIBET. APPLICANT’S CASE 3. The applicant asserts that this Honourable Court is vested with supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6)-(7) of the Constitution, which empowers it to call for the record of any proceedings before a subordinate court or any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, propriety and regularity of such proceedings or orders, and to make such directions as it considers appropriate to ensure the fair administration of justice. 4. Sections 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically provide for the High Court's revisionary powers. 5. The section provides;- "The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 3

page 3 of 45

any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court. 6. The applicant further placed reliance on Section 364 which empowers this Court, upon such examination, to reverse, vary or set aside such orders where it finds them irregular or improper. 7. The impugned orders issued by the Chief Magistrate's Court at Milimani in Misc. Criminal Application No. E3007 of 2025 were made in criminal investigative proceedings. They are therefore amenable to revision where they have been made without observance of constitutional protections, in excess of jurisdiction, or without consideration of relevant legal safeguards. 8. The applicant contended that the bank accounts targeted in the impugned orders relate exclusively to a civil conveyancing transaction which was the subject of NAIROBI ELC NO. E022 of 2022. Chronologically: i.) 2017 - A Sale Agreement was executed between Kenya African National Union (KANU) and the purchaser for LR No. Nairobi/Block 79/782. ii.) 2022 - A dispute arose regarding the property, leading to the filing of ELC No. E022 of 2022. iii.) 8th August 2022 - The parties, with representation by advocates (including the Applicant for KANU), recorded a Consent in the ELC matter, fully settling the dispute. iv.) Post-Consent - The court adopted the Consent as its order and issued a Decree, which expressly governed the transfer of the property and the payment of the purchase price. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 4

page 4 of 45

9. The applicant maintains that the transaction in question was not only the product of voluntary agreement between the parties but was also expressly sanctioned by the Environment and Land Court in ELC No. E022 of 2022. 10. According to him, by recording a Consent on 8th August 2022 which was duly adopted as an order of the court and a Decree issued, the parties effectively clothed the transaction with the authority and finality of a judicial determination. 11. The applicant further posited that every monetary transfer related to this transaction was executed strictly in compliance with the express terms of that Consent and Decree. 12. The manner, timing, and recipients of the payments were all dictated by the court-sanctioned settlement and carried out under professional stakeholder arrangements that are standard in conveyancing practice. 13. The applicant further contends that the criminal investigative process now embarked upon seeks, in substance, to re-open and probe a concluded civil transaction whose terms have been implemented under the supervision and authority of the court. This amounts to a collateral attack on a valid court order through a criminal investigative route; a course of action that is both procedurally irregular and constitutionally suspect. 14. The applicant argued that while the Directorate of Criminal Investigations retains the general mandate to investigate crime, such a mandate cannot be used to second-guess, impugn, or undermine the authority of a subsisting court decree in the absence of credible, concrete, and particularised evidence pointing to criminal conduct. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 5

page 5 of 45

15. According to the applicants, mere suspicion, conjecture, or dissatisfaction with the outcome of a civil settlement cannot justify the fishing expedition into the Applicant's privileged client accounts. 16. It is contended by the applicants that allowing such unrestrained investigations into transactions concluded under judicial sanction would set a dangerous precedent effectively permitting the reopening of settled civil disputes through criminal process, thereby eroding the sanctity of court orders, undermining commercial certainty, and chilling the lawful practice of conveyancing in Kenya. 17. The applicants maintained that they acted solely in their professional capacity as stakeholder advocates for Kenya African National Union (KANU). 18. Further the applicants contend that in the course of conveyancing practice in Kenya, it is standard for the vendor's advocate to receive the purchase price into their client account and disburse it according to the vendor's instructions and contractual terms. 19. The applicants stated that as advocates their duties in this transaction were: a). Receiving the purchase price into its client account; b). Disbursing the funds to pay the vendor's liabilities and to remit the balance to the vendor; 20. In doing so the applicants maintained that they were acting in line with the Consent and Decree in ELC No. E022 of 2022 and the Law Society of Kenya Conditions of Sale. 21. The applicants asserted that they had no beneficial or proprietary interest in the funds. The firm acted as a trustee and intermediary, which is a protected function under the Advocates Act. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 6

page 6 of 45

22. According to the applicants, investigating the Applicant's accounts wholesale sweeps up privileged transactions for other clients and is unrelated to the alleged complaint. 23. The applicants relied on the Advocates Act and Section 134 of the Evidence Act to argue that they are protected from disclosure of any communication between them as advocates and their client made in the course and for the purpose of professional employment, unless the client consents. This includes instructions relating to the handling of funds in a transaction. 24. Further, the applicants cited Section 134(1) of the Evidence Act which provides: "No advocate shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment." 25. The applicants contended that the impugned orders authorise the DCI to obtain all transaction records in the Applicant's client accounts over a 5month period. According to them the vast majority of these records will inevitably relate to unrelated clients and matters, thereby exposing privileged communications and transactions without client consent. 26. The applicants cited the case of Njuguna S. Ndungu v EACC [2018] eKLR where the court held that while investigative bodies may access information, they must respect privilege and cannot indiscriminately access material unrelated to the investigation. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 7

page 7 of 45

27. The applicant went on to argue that the orders granted are not narrowly tailored to the alleged subject of investigation. Instead, they authorise a general trawl through all the Applicant's client account transactions between 8th August 2022 and 31st December 2022. 28. The applicants urged the court to find that in this case, the DCI could have sought limited orders confined to specific dates and amounts relevant to the alleged transaction. Instead, they obtained open-ended access to all transactions, amounting to a fishing expedition. 29. In the applicants view, if the Respondent genuinely require information, they have the option to seek targeted orders identifying the specific payments linked to the sale in ELC No. E022 of 2022, engage the Applicant directly for production of specific records with necessary redactions to preserve privilege and request information from the vendor directly, or from parties to the civil suit, rather than probing all of the Applicant's unrelated transactions. In the applicants submission such narrower measures would achieve the legitimate investigative aim without undermining constitutional protections and professional privilege. 30. The applicant further contended that the subordinate court's orders are irregular, illegal, and improper in several material respects. First, they disregard the express constitutional safeguards enshrined under Articles 31 and 47 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to privacy and the right to fair administrative action. By authorising indiscriminate access to the Applicant's client accounts without limitation to the specific subject matter under investigation. In the applicant’s view the orders amount to an unjustifiable intrusion into constitutionally protected spheres. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 8

page 8 of 45

31. Secondly, the applicant contended that the orders are in direct conflict with Section 134 of the Evidence Act as well as Sections 6 and 60 of the Advocates Act, which codify the principle of advocate-client privilege and protect from disclosure all communications and transactions made in the course of professional employment, except with the client's express consent. The sweeping scope of the orders inevitably captures unrelated and privileged transactions involving other clients, thereby breaching professional secrecy. 32. The applicant however acknowledged that Section 134(2) of the Evidence Act creates a narrow exception to advocate-client privilege, permitting disclosure where the communication is made in furtherance of any illegal purpose, or where the advocate observes, in the course of his employment, any fact showing that a crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of that employment. 33. The applicant posited that the Respondent has sought to invoke this exception implicitly by alleging that the transaction under investigation may involve money laundering. However, this statutory exception is wholly inapplicable to the present circumstances. 34. According to the applicant the funds in question arose entirely from the sale of LR No. Nairobi/Block 79/782, a transaction that was settled through a Consent recorded before the Environment and Land Court in ELC No. E022 of 2022 and implemented pursuant to a Decree of that court. 35. The Applicant acted solely as stakeholder advocate for the vendor (KANU), receiving and disbursing the purchase price in strict conformity with the terms of the Consent, the Decree, and written instructions from the client. All disbursements were made through traceable banking NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 9

page 9 of 45

channels to the parties and third parties identified in the settlement schedule. 36. Further, the applicant contended that the mere allegation of "money laundering" unsupported by any specific, credible evidence showing that the Applicant's communications or handling of funds were in furtherance of an unlawful scheme is insufficient to displace the statutory privilege. Likewise, there is no evidence that the Applicant observed, in the course of acting as stakeholder, any fact indicating that a crime or fraud had been committed. 37. To invoke Section 134(2), the Respondent must point to tangible and particularised evidence linking the advocate's conduct to the alleged offence; in its absence, the privilege remains intact. 38. The applicant urged the court to consider that permitting disclosure on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations would erode the constitutional right to confidential legal representation, invite fishing expeditions into advocates' client accounts, and undermine the independence of the legal profession. 39. The applicant went on to argue that the subordinate court failed to apply the proportionality test required under Article 24 of the Constitution, which demands that any limitation on a right must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved. The applicant maintained that in this instance, there is no demonstrated necessity for such broad and unrestricted access, particularly when narrower, targeted investigative measures were readily available. 40. According to the applicant the orders have the practical effect of permitting wholesale access to confidential information unrelated to the transaction under scrutiny, thereby enabling a circumvention of both NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 10

page 10 of 45

statutory and constitutional privilege protections without adequate or compelling justification. 41. The applicants contend that taking into account all the matters raised by them, they have demonstrated a clear departure from constitutional, statutory, and evidential requirements, and cumulatively meet the threshold for this Honourable Court's intervention under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code to review, revise, and set aside orders that are irregular, illegal, or otherwise improper. RESPONDENNTS CASE 42. The respondents are opposed to the application and vide an affidavit sworn by No.80936 DETECTIVE SERGEANT NICOLAUS OSURI OTIENO stationed at DCI Headquarters they deposed that they are investigating a case of; Conspiracy to defraud contrary to section 317 of the Penal Code and fraudulent disposal of trust property contrary to section 327(1) of the Penal Code, Chapter 63 Laws of Kenya among other offences vide Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) Headquarters inquiry file No.51 of 2024. 43. The Respondent launched investigations following a complaint made to the DCI by Mr. Isaac Irungu on behalf of Buruburu Phase 5 Community to the Applicant that Kenya African National Union (KANU) officials being the Chairman and the Secretary General, Hon. Senator Gideon Kipsielei Towett Moi and Hon. Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Alias Nick Salat respectively, had obtained registration of a parcel of land known as Land Reference No.79/782 (formerly LR. No.209/11046) measuring 0.4013 Hectares situated their Estate and existed thereto Tom Mboya Memorial Hall for public use. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 11

page 11 of 45

44. The deponent averred that John Kiprotich Kibet was the Advocate who handled the conveyance on the subject property between Kenya African National Union (KANU) a political party and Gami Properties Limited. 45. The respondents asserted that it is the fraudulent sale of the public land which operated as Tom Mboya Memorial Social that is subject of investigation by the Respondent herein. 46. The investigation officer deposed that the respondents believe that the Applicant dishonestly and intentionally chose not to make a full material disclosure being an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and an officer of the Court of there being a status quo orders issued by Hon. Justice M. D. Mwangi on 22" July, 2024 in ELC case No. E053 of 2024 ceasing any further construction at the property and the petitioners thereto not to demolish the Tom Mboya Memorial Social Hall therein 47. The respondent sought to rely on the provisions of Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap.75 Laws of Kenya which permits concurrent civil and criminal proceedings solely on the basis of a pending civil case based on similar facts and circumstances and sought to persuade this court that a court cannot stop investigations or prosecution solely on the basis that there is a parallel pending civil suit. 48. According to the investigation officer, Mr. John Kiprotich Kibet, the Applicant herein is again dishonest with this Honourable Court by technically choosing not to provide actual material evidence in his possession as to how the Applicant instructed the purchaser's Advocate that is Kipkenda & Company Advocate to pay out the money to persons NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 12

page 12 of 45

of interest in a clandestine manner for concealment of in a manner trying to beat the anti-money laundering measures. 49. The deponent went further to aver that the investigations were aimed at establishing whether or not the said money was received in the Applicants clients account and if at all it was meant to finance terrorism activities or not or equally if this was a calculated way of tax evasion. Hence it is for these reasons that the Respondent herein should be allowed to carry it constitutional and lawful mandate. 50. The respondents averred that it is a fact that clear instructions from the Applicant herein for a sum of Kshs.48,000,000/= and 3Kshs.5,000,000/= to be deposited to their bank account numbers; 4703090028 and 0140000423 in the name of Oruenjo Kibet & Khalid Advocates and held at NCBA Bank Kenya Limited, Upper Hill Branch and Access Bank PLC, City Hall Way Branch respectively. 51. According to the respondents, the Court Orders in E022 of 2022, which the Applicant has mentioned is subject of ELC Case No. E053 of 2024 that has stayed its execution hence status quo. 52. The respondents urged this court to consider that criminal culpability against any person or entity can only be determined upon evaluation of material evidence, facts in issue which herein are land transaction instruments and financial records in the said conveyance and which are not limited to the Applicants account and the person of Anthony Michael Sugden, D. M. Sugden who allegedly received sum amounts of Kshs.5,500,000/= and Kshs.14,500,0001= respectively and Shahib Aly Khan who allegedly received a sum of Kshs.17,000,000/= in cash. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 13

page 13 of 45

53. The respondents further urged this court to find that the impugned Court Orders were issued by a competent court in Milimani Chief Magistrates' Court Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.E3007 of 2025. The orders are thus regular, lawful, proper and valid. 54. The respondents went on to argue that Honourable Court also considered the interests of justice in that the property in question, having been declared a public land/ utility by all the relevant Departments of the State Department for Lands and Physical Planning, the Department mandated by law to register all interests in land issued. 55. The investigation officer further averred that during investigations the Respondent herein he had interacted with the offices of the Chief Land Registrar, the Director Land Administration, the Director of Surveys and Director Physical Planning in the State Department for Lands and Physical Planning where several documentary evidential materials have been retrieved. 56. The documents include;(a) Land register (b) Lease (c) Letter dated 24th April, 2018 (d) Certificate of Title in the name of Kenya Africa National Union (e) Application for registration of Transfer (f) Valuation Report NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 14

page 14 of 45

(g) Transfer of Lease (h) Certificate of Registration/Incorporation of Kenya Africa National Union and GAMI Enterprise, and the respective PIN Certificates (i) ID's and PIN Certificates for the Directors (j) Letter from the Ethics & Anti-Corruption dated 19th March,2024 (k) Letter from Commissioner of Lands dated 20th August, 1999. (I) Correspondence file contents. (m)The Part Development Plan No. 42/28/93/31 Approved Development Plan No. 389. (n) The Authority to prepare the PDP was granted by the Commissioner of Lands vide letter Ref 93104/11/ (41) dated 28th June,1993. (o) The Commissioner of Lands, The Director of Surveys and the Director of City Planning vide letter Ref PPD/42/28/DC/176 dated 1 s' September,1993. (p) The Part Development Plan No. 42/28/86/14 Approved Development Plan No. 309 and (q) The content of computation file from the Director of Surveys. 57. The respondents further averred that the investigation by the deponent have established that said parcel of land was reserved for the Ministry of Public Works for development of a community hall on 26th June, 1957 through an order of the then Governor. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 15

page 15 of 45

58. Further, the records held by the Commissioner for lands confirmed on l 6 May, 1966, the Permanent Secretary, Office of the President applied to the Commissioner of lands to have the site handed over to KANU following a Cabinet decision to have the land leased to KANU for a period of three years from 1976. 59. Upon expiry of lease KANU requested for renewal in January, 1985 and a letter of allotment was issued on 12th April, 1985 with special condition that the land and the building shall always be used for social hall for a period of 99 years. 60. According to the investigation officer on 25th April, 2018 a lease document in respect of the said land parcel was received at the Nairobi Registry for registration and the same was recorded as Day Book Number 5605 as a new grant lease from the National Government to Kenya African National Union (KANU) as the Lessee. 61. The property is for a leasehold term of 99 years from 1st May, 1985 attraction an Annual Rent of Peppercorn (If demanded). The lease was executed by Hon. Gideon Moi and Hon, Nick Salat as Chairman and Secretary of Kenya African National Union respectively. 62. Upon receipt of the lease, a certificate of lease in favour of Kenya African National Union (KANU) was issued on 25th April, 2018 being the date of presentation. The said lease document was processed under Correspondence File Ref. No.60668 and a forwarding letter dated 24th April, 2018 referenced as Ref. 60668/82. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 16

page 16 of 45

63. On 22nd February, 2021, a transfer between Kenya African National Union (Transferor) and GAMI Enterprises Limited (Transferee) at a consideration of Kshs.80,000,000/= was received under Day Book Number 246 for registration transferring the property to Gami Properties Limited. However, from the letter of instructions, the Applicant herein and other persons mentioned in the said letter later received a total sum of Kshs.90,000,000/= in the said sale. 64. The investigation officer further asserted that the transfer was executed by Hon. Gideon Moi and Hon. Nick Salat on behalf of the transferor and Ashivin Ramji Manji & Bharat Ramji Manji on behalf of the Transferee. Accompanying the transfer were for Registration, Valuation Report, stamp duty payment receipt, ID & PIN Certificates of the parties and Certificates of Registration/Incorporation of the entities. 65. Further, vide a letter Ref. NBI/NAIROBUBLOCK/79/782 dated 23" 1 May, 2024 GAMI Enterprises Limited were issued notice to surrender the certificate of lease for cancellation which they declined and moved to court in ELC Petition No. E053 of 2024 wherein they sued the Cabinet Secretary for Lands, Public Works and Urban Development, The Chief Land Registrar, The Attorney General and Kenya Africa National Union which matter is pending before ELC Court. 66. The respondents contended that recalling of the Certificate of Lease was based on the fact that the processing of the Lease and Title were irregularly done as land and building were earmarked for Social Hall which in its nature is for public utility. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 17

page 17 of 45

67. On 28th July, 2025, the Respondent summoned the Directors of Gami Properties Limited that is, Mr. Ramji Manji Shamji, Mr. Bharat Ramji Manji, Mr. Ashvin Ramji Manji and Mr. Harish Ramji Patel for interviews and statements recording in the matter. However, through their Advocates, Kipkenda and Company Advocates they indicated that only one of the Directors namely Mr. Bharat Ramji Manji is well versed with the facts of the matter and requisite in the making of a statement in the matter as a person who exclusively participated in the purchase of the property from KANU. 68. The respondent further stated that Kipkenda and Company Advocate furnished the Respondent herein with copies of the following copies of documents;(a) Offer of purchase of Land Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 dated 28th April, 2017 letter by Gami Properties Limited to Kenya Africa National Union. (b) Letter dated 12th May, 2017 by Kenya Africa National Union to Gami Properties Limited accepting the above offer to purchase the property. (c) Letter dated 18th May, 2017 by Marrirmoi, Chemurgor & Company Advocates acting for the client, Kenya Africa National Union to Gami Properties Limited accepting the above offer to purchase the property. (d) To Agreement for sale of the property in respect of the property, Land Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 dated 26th May, 2017 NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 18

page 18 of 45

between Kenya Africa National Union and Gami Properties Limited for a sum of Kshs.80,000,000/= drawn by Marrirmoi, Chemurgor & Company Advocates. (e) Consent to transfer for in respect of the property, Land Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 dated 27th April, 2018 by Kenya African National Union. (f) Official search Certificate dated 9th May, 2018 on the property known as Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 in the name of Kenya Africa National Union. (g) Certificate of Lease Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 dated 25th April, 2018 in the name of Kenya Africa National Union. (h) Transfer of lease for Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 dated 2" February, 2021 from Kenya Africa National Union to Gami Properties Limited drawn by Kipkenda and Company Advocates. (Annexed herein and marked "N0012" (i) Certificate of Lease Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 dated 22" February, 2021 in the name of Gami Properties Limited. (j) Official search Certificate dated 24th February, 2021 on the property known as Title number NAIROBI BLOCK 79/782 in the name of Gami Properties Limited. 69. Further, by a letter dated 8th August, 2022 by Oruenjo Kibet and IChalid Advocates to Kipkenda & Company Advocates gave instructions in NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 19

page 19 of 45

respect remittance of the sale and purchase price of the property as a sum of Kshs.90,000,000/= specific bank accounts and cash as follows;(a) Kshs.48,000,000/= to Bank account name; Oruenjo Kibet & Ithalid Advocates, bank account No.4703090028 at NCBA Bank, Upper Hill Branch. (b) Kshs.5,000,000/= to Bank account name; Oruenjo Kibet & Khalid Advocates, bank account No.0140000423 at Access Bank PLC, City Hall Way Branch. (c) Kshs.5,500,000/= to Bank account name; Anthony Michael Sugden, bank account No.1250262658632 at Equity Bank Kenya Limited. (d) Kshs.14,500,000/— to Bank account name; D.M. Sugden, bank account No.00868248 at ABSA Bank Kenya Limited (Sterling pounds account). (e) Cash of Kshs.17,000,000/= payable to Shahib Aly Khan of identity card No.6459314 (Director of Elections, Kenya Africa National Union). 70. The respondents contended that the above disbursement of the sale and purchase price is suspicious and was executed in a manner that meets the threshold of money laundering after the unlawful sale of the public utility by the two officials of Kenya African National Union to private entity. The same contradicts the Agreement for sale quoted sum of Kshs.80,000,000/= and no explanation or amendment evidence of the Agreement for sale now shown at Kshs.90,000,000/— has been provided by the Applicant herein. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 20

page 20 of 45

71. The deponent further told this court that the preliminary investigations by the Respondent herein have established that the sale of the public utility was fraudulent and is also subject of the Milimani Environment and Land Court Constitutional Petition No. E053 of 2024 where development of the property by Gami Properties has been stayed in the matter. 72. According to the respondents there is urgent need for the Respondent herein to continue with investigations within its functions under Section 35 of the National Police Service Act No.11A of 2011 and establish whether or not monies were remitted to the bank accounts mentioned thereto and the individual person named thereto. 73. The respondents further urged this court to find that it was in the interest of justice that in order to facilitate investigations, there was need for the Respondent herein to independently seek for Court Orders warrant to investigate the beneficiary bank accounts thereto including the Applicant's bank account numbers; 4703090028 at NCBA Bank, Upper Hill Branch and 0140000423 at Access Bank PLC, City Hall Way Branch belonging to the 4th Respondent herein respectively and retrieve certified copies of the account opening documents, RTGSs, cheques as per the transaction instructions and bank statements for the period between 8"' August, 2022 and 31" December, 2022. The application being merited, the Court Orders were issued accordingly. 74. The Respondent urged the court to consider that bankers, maintain records of account opening documents for their clients, bank statements for their clients, bank accounts and all instructions given by their clients NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 21

page 21 of 45

in respect of bank account numbers thus Respondent herein had reason to seek the Court Orders against the respective banks named in their application to the lower court. 75. The investigation officer asserted that he was aware of need to seek orders to interview and record statements from the nominated authorized persons for purpose of issuance of certified copies of bank accounts opening records and bank statements sought in the application as well as issuance of certificate of electronically generated records thereto under Section 65(8) and (9) and Section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya. 76. The said Court Orders were extracted and served upon the Respondents' banks thereof on 12th August, 2025 and so far, the lst, 2nd and 5th Respondents' banks have fully complied with the same. The account opening documents, bank account statements and certificates of production of electronic evidence in respect to the Applicant's bank accounts at Access Bank Kenya Limited and NCBA Bank Kenya Limited have since been supplied to the Respondent herein. The copies of the account opening documents, bank account statements and certificates of production of electronic evidence were in annexed to the affidavit in reply having been obtained from Access Bank Kenya Limited and NCBA Bank Kenya Limited Access Bank Kenya Limited and NCBA Bank Kenya Limited. 77. The respondent further maintained that Access Bank Kenya Limited and NCBA Bank Kenya Limited who the Applicant herein is seeking orders to stop from providing us with such information have both fully complied NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 22

page 22 of 45

with the Court Orders in Milimani Chief Magistrates' Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E3007 of 2025. Thus, the Application herein is overtaken by events. 78. The respondent urged this Honourable Court to be guided by the Environment and Land Court decision in ELC case No. E025 of 2020; KENYA AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION Vs CABINET SECRETARY, LANDS, PUBLIC WORKS, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT and 5 others where the Court said at paragraph 110 of the judgment that "KANU was neither a religious, charitable, educational, or sports institution. It was and is a political party of members with private aspirations not charitable, not an educational, not a religious, nor an institution related to sports." Therefore, KANU did not qualify to be allocated the land which was already alienated for public purpose by approved plan No.309 79. Further, the respondent posited that the investigations by the Respondent herein are being conducted within the tenets of the Constitution and statutory law and in strict compliance with the functions of the National Police Service under the National Police Service Act No.11A of 2011. Section 35 therefore provides for the functions of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations which are interalia: 10 (a) Collect and provide criminal intelligence; (b) Undertake investigations on serious crimes including homicide, narcotic crimes, human trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, economic crimes, piracy, organized crime, and cybercrime among others; NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 23

page 23 of 45

(c) Maintain law and order; (d) Detect and prevent crime; (e) Apprehend offenders; (f) Maintain criminal records; (g) Conduct forensic analysis; (h) Execute the directions given to the Inspector-General by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to Article 157 (4) of the Constitution; (i) Co-ordinate country Interpol Affairs; (j) Investigate any matter that may be referred to it by the Independent Police Oversight Authority; and (k) Perform any other function conferred on it by any other written law. 80. The respondent further argued that this Honourable Court should allow the subordinate Courts exercise their mandates within the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and allow prosecution of the Applicant herein as it plays its supervisory role in the Criminal Justice system scope there being prima facie evidence to warrant issuance of the Court Orders dated 11th August, 2025. 81. According to the applicant this application is made mala fides as the same should have been made in the already ongoing civil suit. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 24

page 24 of 45

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 82. The impugned orders that were issued by the learned Honorable Magistrate were as hereunder;“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:1. THAT, this Honourable Court do hereby authorize Service No.80936 Detective Sergeant Nicolaus Osuri Otieno, an investigator attached to Land Fraud Investigation Unit at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations Headquarters in Nairobi, or any other investigators attached to and authorized by the Applicant, by this Search Warrant to demand you the Manager(s) of; ABSA Bank Kenya Limited, the 4th Respondent herein to enable him to inspect/ investigate, obtain information and demand to be supplied with;(i) All bank account opening documents in the name of D.M. Sugden and or Anthony Michael Sugden domiciled at ABSA Bank Kenya Limited, the 4th Respondent herein. (ii) All Bank statements relating to D.M. Sugden and or Anthony Michael Sugden domiciled at ABSA Bank Kenya Limited, the 4th Respondent herein for the period between 8th August, 2022 and 31st December, 2022. 2. THAT an order do and is hereby issued compelling you, Manager(s) of; ABSA Bank Kenya Limited, the 4th Respondent herein to nominate authorized person(s) to make and give to Service No.80936 Detective Sergeant Sergeant Nicolaus Nicolaus Osuri Osuri Otieno, an Investigating Officer attached to the Applicant, or any other investigator attached to and authorized by the Applicant, Certificate of production of electronic evidence contemplated under section 65(8) and (9) and section 106B(4) of Evidence Act, Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya in respect of any NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 25

page 25 of 45

evidence (certified copies) generated electronically or from and by electronic device(s) that shall be given in compliance with Order 1, above, of this Honourable Court. 3. THAT an order do and is hereby issued compelling you, Manger(s) of; ABSA Bank Kenya Limited, the 4th Respondent herein to nominate authorized person(s) as may be nominated to recorded statements, persons who would become potential witnesses in the criminal case that may be instituted upon completion of investigations being undertaken by the Applicant with Service No.80936 Detective Sergeant Nicolaus Osuri Otieno, an Investigating Officer attached to the Applicant, or any other investigator attached to and authorized by the Applicant. 4. THAT an order do and is hereby issued compelling you, Manager(s) of; ABSA Bank Kenya Limited, the 4th Respondent herein to comply with all the Orders of this Honourable Court. The matter shall be mentioned on 10/09/2025. 5. THAT there be no orders as to cost of this Application.” 83. The applicants’ contention is that the orders are too broad and have the potential of authorizing unlimited access to their client accounts much to the prejudice of their innocent clients yet the dispute here is specific. 84. The applicants are in essence not opposed to the investigators accessing their accounts but the concern is that the orders ought to have been specific as to the extent of information to be provided and the period to be covered considering that the investigation is into a specific matter. 85. The argument by the applicant is that the orders are prone to abuse and may lead into actions by the investigator which do not accord them fair treatment. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 26

page 26 of 45

86. The application brings to the fore the question of fair investigations and the need to ensure that the privacy of individuals during investigations is respected and investigators conduct themselves in the most professional and fair manner as they undertake investigations. 87. The issue of fairness during investigations was considered in the case of Sanjeev @ Kallu Sethiya v. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18458 of 2022 decided on 17.10.2022 with an emphasis from Paras 29 to 36 highlighting the importance of a fair investigation. The same read as under: “29. The U.P. Police Regulation 107 and 108 detail the procedure required to be followed by the Investigating Officer as follows:107. An Investigating Officer is not to regard himself as a mere clerk for the recording of statements. It is his duty to observe and to infer. In every case, he must use his own expert observations of the scene of the offence and of the general circumstances to check the evidence of witnesses, and in cases in which the culprits are unknown to determine the direction in which he shall look for them. He must study the methods of local offenders who are known to the police with a view to recognizing their handiwork, and he must be on his guard against accepting the suspicions of witness and complaints when they conflict with obvious inferences from facts. He must remember that it his duty to find out the truth and not merely to obtain convictions. He must not prematurely commit himself to any view of the facts for or against any person and though he need not go out of his way to hunt up evidence for the defence in a case in which he has satisfactory grounds for NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 27

page 27 of 45

believing that an accused person is guilty, he must always give accused persons an opportunity of producing defence evidence before him, and must consider such evidence carefully if produced. Burglary investigations should be conducted in accordance with the special orders on the subject. 108. The first step of the Investigating Officer should be to note in the case diary prescribed by Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the time and place at which he has received the information on which he acts and to make in the diary a copy of the first information report. When beginning his investigation, he must note in the diary the time and place at which he begins. He should then inspect the scene of the alleged offence and question the complainant and any other person who may be able to throw light on the circumstances. At an early stage of the investigation, he should consult the village crime note-book to learn of any matter recorded there which may have a bearing on the case. 30. A perusal of the aforesaid regulations shows that for the Investigating Officer, the accused and the complainant are equal at the time of conducting investigation. He has to consider the case of both the parties and thereafter, arrive at a fair conclusion regarding the investigation into the allegations made against the accused. He is not required to simply prove that the allegations in the F.I.R are correct and should necessarily collect evidence to implicate the accused, justifying his implication. This was done when the country NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 28

page 28 of 45

was under colonial rule but it appears that even after independence the police investigation is still the same. Its aim is only to justify the implication. Rarely the statements of the accused side are recorded by the investigating officers of police. 31. What is fair investigation has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of judgements, considered hereinbelow:1) State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, at page 258 : 48. From this perspective, the function of the judiciary in the course of investigation by the police should be complementary and full freedom should be accorded to the investigator to collect the evidence connecting the chain of events leading to the discovery of the truth, viz., the proof of the commission of the crime. Often individual liberty of a witness or inconvenience an is accused person inescapable are and involved and unavoidable. The investigating officer would conduct indepth investigation to discover truth while keeping in view the individual liberty with due observance of law. At the same time he has a duty to enforce criminal law as an integral process. No criminal justice system deserves respect if its wheels are turned by ignorance. It is never his business to fabricate the evidence to connect the suspect with the commission of the crime. Trustworthiness of the police is the primary insurance. Reputation for investigative competence and individual honesty of the investigator are necessary to NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 29

page 29 of 45

enthuse public confidence. Total support of the public also is necessary. 2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336, at page 268 : 32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer "is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth". (Vide R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822; and Mahmood Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69). 3) Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, at page 792 : 48. What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression ''fair and proper investigation' in criminal jurisprudence? It has a twin purpose. Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law. Secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 30

page 30 of 45

out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. Once these twin paradigms of fair investigation are satisfied, there will be the least requirement for the court of law to interfere with the investigation, much less quash the same, or transfer it to another agency. Bringing out the truth by fair and investigative means in accordance with law would essentially repel the very basis of an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of false implication. Thus, it is inevitable for a court of law to pass a specific order as to the fate of the investigation, which in its opinion is unfair, tainted and in violation of the settled principles of investigative canons. 4) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 309, at page 383 : 58.9. Administering criminal justice is a two-end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the accused under Constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim. It is definitely a daunting task but equally a compelling responsibility vested on the court of law to protect and shield the rights of both. Thus, a just balance between the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. Accordingly, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. As NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 31

page 31 of 45

a consequence, in our view this is a fit case for quashing the second F.I.R to meet the ends of justice. 58.10. The investigating officers are the kingpins in the criminal justice system. Their reliable investigation is the leading step towards affirming complete justice to the victims of the case. Hence, they are bestowed with dual duties i.e. to investigate the matter exhaustively and subsequently collect reliable evidences to establish the same. 5) Manohar Lal Sharma v. Prinicipal Secy., (2014) 2 SCC 532 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 1, at page 553 : 26. One of the responsibilities of the police is protection of life, liberty and property of citizens. The investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and bring the offender to book. 27. Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") defines investigation to include all the proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by the Magistrate in this behalf. 28. In H.N. Rishbud, this Court explained that the investigation generally consists of the following steps : (AIR p. 201, para 5) NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 32

page 32 of 45

(1) Proceeding to the spot; (2) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case; (3) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (4) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of the examination of : (a) various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of statement into writing, if the officer thinks fit; (b) the search of places and seizure of things, considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial; (5) formation of the opinion as to whether on the materials collected, there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial, if so, take the necessary steps for the same for filing necessary charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (6) Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 4 SCC 626 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 384, at page 643 : 48. Undoubtedly, the essence of criminal justice system is to reach the truth. The underlying principle is that whilst the guilty must not escape punishment; no innocent person shall be punished unless the guilt of the suspect/accused is established in accordance with law. All suspects/accused are presumed to be innocent till their guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a trial conducted according to the procedure prescribed under law. Fair, unbiased and NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 33

page 33 of 45

transparent investigation is a sine quo non for protecting the accused. Being dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation was being conducted, the father of the victim filed the petition seeking an impartial investigation. (emphasis added) 88. The authorities cited above bring to the fore a very pertinent aspect of the investigators role in our criminal justice system. The investigators duty is not to scavenge for incriminating evidence against a person suspected of involvement of a criminal activity. 89. The investigation officer must be objective and specific in the manner he undertakes his investigation remembering that he also has a duty to ensure that the suspected person receives what could be said to be a fair investigation that respects the persons right to fair administrative action as envisaged under Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Actions Act. 90. The investigator thus must ensure that he collects both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence if any and should not be bent on suppressing any bit of evidence that he comes across in the course of investigation that may be of help to his case and the defense of the suspected person. 91. The respondents here were investigating a specific transaction and as such they should have focused on a specific timeframe within which to extend their investigation. 92. The investigator clearly obtained what I consider a global order against the applicants. Even in the investigation of money laundering crimes the investigation must be targeted otherwise the investigator can very easily turn into a tormentor of his suspects if he is unrestrained. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 34

page 34 of 45

93. The fight against crime must be conducted within the law thus the rights of suspects as well as victim must be carefully balanced. 94. The police have a duty to detect and prevent crime but that must be done within the law. In Law Society of Kenya & another v Director of Criminal Investigations & 2 others (Petition E015 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 12504 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (12 August 2025) (Judgment) the court held;“The mandate of the respondents is well provided for in the Constitution. The National Police Service is established under article 243 of the Constitution. The National Police Service Act, 2011 which operationalizes the above article provides in section 24(e) that one of the functions of the police is the investigation of crimes. In Daniel Ogwoka Manduku v Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others [2019] eKLR, the court in discussing the role of the police in investigation of crimes held: “…The powers of the police to investigate a crime cannot be challenged because the police is there principally to combat crime. It is therefore not possible to stop any criminal investigations unless the foundation of such investigations is malicious or is an abuse of power…Odunga J in Isaac Tumunu Njunge v Director of Public Prosecutions & 2 others [2016] eKLR, said with regard to the power of the police to investigate: “… 42.It is however my view that the police are clearly mandated to investigate the commission of criminal offences and in so doing they have powers inter alia to take statements and conduct forensic investigations. In order for the applicant to succeed he must show that not only are the investigations NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 35

page 35 of 45

which were being done by the police are being carried out with ulterior motives but that the predominant purpose of conducting the investigations is to achieve some collateral result not connected with the vindication of an alleged commission of a criminal offence. It must always be remembered that the motive of institution of the criminal proceedings is only relevant where the predominant purpose is to further some other ulterior purpose and as long as the prosecution and those charged with the responsibility of making the decisions to charge act in a reasonable manner, the High Court would be reluctant to intervene…” 95. The applicant cited Section 134(1) of the Evidence Act as a provision that affords advocates from disclosure of information received from their clients. The section provides;- : "No advocate shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment." 96. However, the applicant acknowledges that the protection is not a blanket one and does not extend to communication or information related to the commission of a criminal offence. The police have the right in law to request information from an advocate in the course of their investigations into a criminal matter. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 36

page 36 of 45

97. The police would only be expected in the course of doing so to respect the confidentiality of the general clients of the affected law firm and avoid unnecessary intrusion into the advocates affairs. The caution is important otherwise legal practice would quickly turn into a nightmare if investigations were to be mounted willy -nilly exposing all the clients of a particular law firm to exposure of their information when they have absolutely nothing to do with the matter under investigation. 98. The courts would therefore not intervene and stop investigations where the police conduct themselves within the bounds of law unless it is shown that investigations are actuated by malice and or calculated to achieve a collateral purpose other than the fight against crime. 99. In Republic v Service & 2 others; Resilient Investments Limited & 3 others (Interested Party); Limited (Exparte) (Judicial Review Application E037 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 43 (KLR) (4 February 2022) (Judgment) the court held;“The applicant seeks an order of prohibition to stop the investigations. A writ of Prohibition arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board or person. A prohibiting order is similar to a quashing order in that it prevents a tribunal or authority from acting beyond the scope of its powers. The key difference is that a prohibiting order acts prospectively by telling an authority not to do something in contemplation. However, the illegality of the impugned decision has not been established nor has it been established that the Respondents NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 37

page 37 of 45

acted illegally or in excess of their powers, hence the writ of prohibition cannot issue in this case.” 100. The applicant in this matter has not prayed for the court to stop investigation but rather restrict the investigation into the matter that the respondents have identified as being their target for investigation. 101. The request by the applicants is fair considering that in their routine work as advocates they are bound to keep under strict confidence information exchanged between them and their clients except where such information is shown to be information that may be in furtherance of a crime in which case such information must be disclosed to law enforcement agencies. 102. Advocates under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti- Money Laundering Act are reporting agents therefore they have disclosure responsibility in appropriate cases. 103. The respondents have set out the matter they are inquiring into thus the advocates are under duty to provide such information to the police. Under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act all reporting institutions who include law firms must abide by the provisions of Section 44 of the Act which Provides;44. Monitoring and Report by institutions (1) A reporting institution shall monitor on an ongoing basis all complex, unusual, suspicious, large or such other transactions as may be specified in the regulations, whether completed or not, and shall pay attention to all unusual patterns of transactions, and to insignificant but periodic patterns of transactions which have no apparent economic or lawful purpose as stipulated in the regulations. (2) Upon suspicion that any of the transactions or activities NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 38

page 38 of 45

described in subsection (1,) or any other transaction or activity could constitute or be related to money laundering or to the proceeds of crime, a reporting institution shall report the suspicious or unusual transaction or activity to the Centre in the prescribed form immediately and, in any event, within seven days of the date the transaction or activity that is considered to be suspicious occurred. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a reporting institution shall report all suspicious transactions, including attempted transactions to the Centre. (4) A financial institution shall as far as possible examine the background and purpose of the transactions referred in subsections (1) and (2) and shall set out its findings in writing. (5) A reporting institution shall retain its findings under subsection (4) for at least seven years from the date of the making thereof, and shall make them available to the Centre, and to its supervisory body or auditors. (6) Despite the provisions of this section, a reporting institution shall file reports on all cash transactions equivalent to or exceeding the amount prescribed in the Fourth Schedule, whether they appear to be suspicious or not. (7) A report under subsections (2) and (3) shall be accompanied by copies of all documentation directly relevant to the suspicion and the grounds on which it is based. (8)The Centre may, in writing, require the person making the report under subsection (2) or (3) to provide the Centre with— (a) particulars or further particulars of any matter concerning the suspicion to which the report relates and the grounds upon which it NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 39

page 39 of 45

is based; and (b) copies of all available documents concerning such particulars or further particulars. (9) When a person receives a request under subsection (8), that person shall furnish the Centre with the required particulars or further particulars and copies of documents to the extent that such particulars or documents are available to that person within a reasonable time, but in any case not later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the request: Provided that the Centre may, upon written application by the person responding to a request and with the approval of the Director, grant the person an extension of the time within which to respond. (10) A person who is a party to, or is acting on behalf of, a person who is engaged in a transaction in respect of which he forms a suspicion which, in his opinion, should be reported under subsections (2) or (3), may continue with and complete that transaction and shall ensure that all records relating to that transaction are kept, and that all reasonable steps are taken to discharge the obligation under this section. 104. The investigation officer has indicated that he is inquiring into a complex transaction involving the applicants’ firm and their clients over a transaction the applicants acknowledge handling. The respondents have tabulated in great detail the transactions they consider suspect. The expectation therefore would be that any information requested from the advocate or their bankers would also be specific. 105. It is therefore in order for the applicants to insist that the respondents be restricted to issues and accounts that are related to the transaction and NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 40

page 40 of 45

nothing more in order to regulate the extent of information that the respondents may gather from their client accounts in order to safeguard other clients’ interests. 106. The court in PETITITON-NO.-30-AS-CONSOLIDATED-WITH-31OF-2019-Between-Ethics-and-Anti-Corruption-Commission-andother-Vs-PROF.-TOM-OJIENDA-and-2-others while dealing with the issue of investigations touching on advocates firms had this to say;“[75] We have already held that the 1st appellant is not required to give written Notice prior to commencing an investigation in all situations. We have also held that where circumstances obtain under Sections 26, 27 and 28 of ACECA, the 1st appellant has to issue written Notice in accordance with the stipulations therein. Having held so, we cannot state with certainty that the 1st appellant ought to have moved to court under Section 26 because we have no information on record showing that the Secretary had formed an opinion that the information sought was to aid or expedite the on-going investigation. Neither can we state that the 1st appellant ought to have moved to court under Section 27 since it was not investigating the 1st respondent as an Associate of a person suspected of corruption or economic crime. That leaves us with Section 28 which is confined to notices requiring the production of records or property as the case may be. Can it be said that the 1st appellant ought to have moved to Court under Section 28? We think not, because in this instance, the investigations had already commenced (See paragraph 69 above). NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 41

page 41 of 45

[76] In view of the foregoing, we find it difficult to sustain the declaration by the Court of Appeal to the effect that, the 1st appellant is inflexibly bound to issue Notice in the conduct of its investigations. Where the 1st appellant is acting under its Police powers, it is bound by the laws pursuant to which the Police conduct their investigations and connected purposes. Where it conducts investigations in circumstances where the law requires it to issue written Notice, then it has to issue the Notice. At the end of the day, the people expect that the law enforcement agencies established under the Constitution and the law are effective enough to protect them from crime and related dangers. By the same token, the people expect SC Petition No. 30 of 2019 (As Consolidated with) Petition No. 31 of 2019 Page 33 of 35that such agencies will carry out their mandates in accordance with the Constitution and the law.” 107. The applicant therefore is not facing a situation that others in the profession have not faced. The investigators only require to be fair and committed to establishing the truth as is mandated by the law. 108. The court that issued the warrants to investigate accounts of the applicants ought to have been specific as to the accounts to be targeted. 109. The specifity, would help in determining the extent to which the investigations would go in order to avoid prejudicing other clients interests. 110. The respondents have alleged that they are investigating the movement of funds that they suspect to be proceeds of crime thus their action prima facie meets the expectation of the law. The investigation into the advocates firm accounts should be restricted to their stated purpose. NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 42

page 42 of 45

111. The Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act under Section 3 of the Act provides;“3. Money laundering A person who knows or who ought reasonably to have known that property is or forms part of the proceeds of crime and— (a) enters into any agreement or engages in any arrangement or transaction with anyone in connection with that property, whether that agreement, arrangement or transaction is legally enforceable or not; or (b) performs any other act in connection with such property, whether it is performed independently or with any other person, whose effect is to— (i) conceal or disguise the nature, source, location, disposition or movement of the said property or the ownership thereof or any interest which anyone may have in respect thereof; or (ii) enable or assist any person who has committed or commits an offence, whether in Kenya or elsewhere to avoid prosecution; or (iii) remove or diminish any property acquired directly, or indirectly, as a result of the commission of an offence, commits an offence.” The broad nature of this offence of money laundering would involve the investigation being extended to advocates where they are suspected of aiding in concealing or disguising a transaction. The investigations being undertaken from the explanation provided NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 43

page 43 of 45

by the respondents are predicated on a suspect transaction thus the entry of the police into the matter cannot ipso facto be said to be baseless. 112. The respondents allege that the property in issue was fraudulently disposed of thus the monies obtained therefrom are proceeds of crime. In effect there is a probable cause and a factual basis for the police to investigate thus they cannot be stopped from investigating. 113. The intervention that this court grants is that the warrants issued by subordinate court are to be applied to the limited scope of the transaction under investigation and nothing more. Any investigations beyond the scope of their stated objective would amount to an intrusion into the privacy of the law firm and its clients. 114. The court finds that in failing to specify the extent of the application of the orders the honorable magistrate erred and that irregularity is susceptible to review by this court in exercise of its supervisory powers under Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code as read with Article 165(6) of the Constitution. 115. The orders are to be applied to the investigation into the transaction in issue. 116. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED VIRTUALLY at NAIROBI this 27th day of FEBRUARY, 2026. A. M. MUTETI NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 44

page 44 of 45

JUDGE In the presence of: Habiba: Court Assistant Oloo for the Applicant Ms Kubo h/b Munene for Respondent for Respondent NAIROBI HC CR REVISION E 120 OF 2025 –Oruenjo Kibet Khalid Advocates -vs- Republic 45

page 45 of 45