Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited v Republic (through Banking Fraud Investigation Unit) & 1 other

4. That this Honourable Court be pleased to vary, reverse, and or alter the orders of the Milimani Magistrate Court in Milimani Miscellaneous Application No. E3618/2025 Republic vs. Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited given on 18th September, 2025. The grounds are as follows; 2. On the 16th September, 2025 LR.No. 7741/254 (LR. No. 70945) was sold vide public auction to a bonafide purchaser for value through the exercise of Statutory Power of Sale, with full proceeds received. 3. An exparte order dated 18th September, 2025 was issued in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. E3618 of 2025 putting restriction on the subject property. 4. It is this order that is said to be defective on its face as it bears no name or identification of the Judicial officer, thereby constituting a gross irregularity apparent on the face of the record. 5. That the order was issued without notice to the applicant to be heard hence violating principles of natural justice and article 50 of the constitution on fair hearing. 6. That the complainant lacks locus standi, as the former proprietors’ equity of redemption was extinguished at the face of the hammer pursuant to section 98(8) and 104(4) of the Land Act limiting their remedy to damages against the charge under section 99(4) of the Act. 7. That the orders are overtaken by events, issued two (2) days after completion of the sale to an innocent third party purchaser protected under section 99(3) of the Land Act. 8. That the indefinite restriction on dealings with the title lack statutory basis in ordinary criminal investigations and interferes with vested property rights under article 40 of the constitution. 9. That the Lands registry refusal to register the transfer, despite no noted restriction on the Register as at 18th December, 2025 is arbitrary. 10. That the order is an abuse of the court process and forum shopping as the complainant having failed to secure unconditional injunctive relief from the High Court in Milimani HCCMM.PET.E018/2025 to restrain the exercise of the applicant’s statutory power of sale – resorted to criminal miscellaneous proceedings to impose restrictions achieving substantially the same prohibited objective, thus improperly circumventing the High Court’s determination which amounts to unauthorized appeal against the High Court decision. 11. That unless revised, the orders will cause irreparable prejudice to the applicant and the bonafide purchaser. 12. This application is opposed. 13. The respondents rely on the grounds of opposition and the replying affidavit of Chief Inspector Gladys Jepkorir Kipruto attached to the banking fraud investigation unit. 14. She avers that her unit received a complaint letter from the firm of Ardeller & Associates Advocates with serious allegations on the conduct of Stanbic Bank and or its officers. The complainant was one Nasser Abdulhamid Ahmed Baksh. 15. Upon receipt of the complaint she initiated investigations and opened inquiry file No. BFLU 544 of 2025. The allegations pointed to the possible commission of serious offences including forgery https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11852/eng@2026-04-28 2

page 2 of 4

contrary to section 345 as read with section 349 of the penal code and fraudulent false accounting contrary to section 330 of the penal code. 1.6 So as to access the ministry of Lands records and secure them, it was required and necessary to seek judicial warrants. She swore an affidavit and appeared before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani which subsequently issued orders and warrants on 18th September,2025. It is these orders and warrants which are subject requests for revision. 1.7 I have perused the orders of the Lower Court and the letter of complaint dated 3rd September, 2025 and find that it comprises of detailed complaints against the applicant for; 1. Falsifying, doctoring and or altering home loan application forms, forgery of signatures and or records with the aim of exaggerating amounts borrowed so as to steal from the complainant. 2. Inflation of loan amounts so as to steal from the complainant. 3. Making false entries so as to steal from the complainant through; 4. (i) illegal conversion of the complainants and wife’s joint home loans from Kenya shillings to United States in 2014 and insertion of strange unknown amounts presented as disbursements in United States dollars when there was no disbursement in the first instance. (ii) levying of illegal interest charges varied at whim on the said converted loan accounts contrary to section 44 of the Banking Act. (iii) outright theft by charging short and long term interest monthly when there is no insurer, insured amount, insurance policy and or certificate duly executed by the complainant. Theft by advancing illegal payments from the complainants despite the complainant having attained the Duplum Rule threshold by illegally citing the account as non-performing so as to compel the complainant to continue making payments despite the complainant and his wife repaying a total of Kenya shillings four hundred and sixty-six million one hundred and fifty-five thousand three hundred and nine and eighty-two cents (Ksh. 466,155,309.82) given that he and his wife had borrowed Kenya shillings a (Ksh. 101,250,000) Kenya shillings one hundred and one million two hundred and fifty thousand. 5. Colliding with an auctioneer to illegally sell the complainants properties despite them having attained the Duplum Rule threshold which sale is meant to take place on 15th and 16th September, 2025 despite the complainant having filed a constitutional petition which was slated for hearing on the 22nd September, 2025 and pointed out these illegalities to the bank seeking redress which the bank has refused to do. The complainant sought the intervention of the unit for; 1. 1. preservation of the properties subject to investigations by requesting the Bflu to move urgently and place cautions against the titles of the said properties subject of this investigation, preventing any tampering and or disposal of the same. 2. urgent investigation into the matters raised with a view to prosecuting all those found to be culpable. It is the applicant’s contention that the orders issued by the Lower Court were defective as they bore no name or identification of the issuing officer. I have perused the said order dated 18th September, 2025 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11852/eng@2026-04-28 3

page 3 of 4

and I am satisfied that it was issued by a competent court of law. It bears the signature of the magistrate, the seal of the court and the date of issuance. There is nothing improper or irregular. 18. On the issue as to whether the complainant lacks locus standi as the former proprietors’ equity of redemption was extinguished at the fall of the hammer on 16th September, 2025 pursuant to section 98(8) as read with section 104(4) of the Land Act. I find there was an auction but what is in dispute is its legality. It is the complainant’s contention that no statutory notices were issued and served before the auction. That the complainant and his wife had repaid Ksh. 466,155,309.82 (four hundred and sixty-six million one hundred and fifty-five thousand three hundred and nine and eighty-two cents) to the applicant against a loan advanced or taken of Ksh. 101, 250, 000 (one hundred and one million two hundred fifty thousand) hence having attained the Duplum Rule threshold. 19. It is trite law that civil processes are separate and distinct from criminal ones. The fact of presence of a civil process does not bar parties to engage in a criminal one or vice versa. It cannot be said to be tantamount to forum shopping. 2.0 I find that the applicant has not approached this court with clean hands. The applicant has deliberately concealed the fact that the complainant had made numerous allegations of forgeries, fraud, illegal entries and outright theft which the applicant failed to address. 21. In criminal investigations warrants are issued exparte to preserve evidence so as to prevent destruction and or concealment. Article 50 provides for a fair trial. 22. On the issue of prejudice, the property in question is charged to the applicant who still holds the title. He is not prejudiced. If an order for revision is granted, it is the complainant who would suffer prejudice if the property is sold and further will suffer loss of his money already paid in excess to the bank. 23. I am satisfied that the Lower Court properly and lawfully issued restriction orders so as to preserve the asset subject matter of investigation thus maintaining status quo. 24. This application has no merit and its dismissed with costs. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026. ............... MARTIN M. MUYA JUDGE In the Presence of: Mrs. Owino – For the complainant Mr. Maina – For the State Isacko - Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11852/eng@2026-04-28 4

page 4 of 4