Home Blog

OMTATAH SUES TO BLOCK PLANNED SALE OF KENYA PIPELINE COMPANY.

By Sam Alfan.

Busia Senator Okiyah Omtatah has challenge the planned privatisation of the Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (KPC), arguing that selling the firm before accounting for alleged fraud amounting to over Sh97 billion would conceal the loss of public funds.

Senator Omtatah alongside certified fraud examiner Bernard Muchere, and Naomi Misati have challenged the constitutionality, legality, and procedural validity of the privatisation of state corporations, including the ongoing process involving KPC.

The three petitioners also contest the constitutionality of the Privatisation Act No. 18 of 2025 and its predecessor, the Privatisation Act of 2005.

They are seeking orders to restrain the government from taking any steps aimed at implementing or executing the privatisation of KPC.

This includes the appointment or engagement of transaction advisers, legal advisers, investment banks, brokers, or public relations firms.

They further want the High Court to suspend the Privatisation Act, 2025 pending the hearing and determination of both the application and the petition.

In addition, the petitioners want the court to bar the government and its agencies from undertaking or facilitating the valuation of KPC, valuation of shares, structuring of an Initial Public Offering (IPO), marketing or sale of shares, preparation or issuance of a prospectus or information memorandum, listing of KPC shares, or any sale, transfer, dilution, or disposal of interests in the company.

Further, the petitioners have demanded the disclosure of the complete International Monetary Fund (IMF) Country Report No. 24/316 and all Letters of Intent, Memoranda of Understanding, side agreements, and correspondence between the Government of Kenya and the IMF relating to the privatisation of state corporations under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and Extended Credit Facility (ECF) programmes.

“Unless the application is urgently heard and determined, the applicants and the people of Kenya will suffer great loss as the matter will be overtaken by events and the Constitution and rule of law will continue to be violated,” the petitioners told the court.

According to them, an IMF report releseed in November explicitly outlines Kenya’s binding commitments to privatise state corporations as a structural condition of its loan programme.

The petitioners further argue that the privatisation is unconstitutional, null, and void because it is based on a privatisation programme published through Gazette Notice No. 8739 of August 14, 2009, which predates the 2010 Constitution and was never aligned with it as required under Article 262 and Section 7(1) of the Sixth Schedule.

They also claim that the entire privatisation process is fatally flawed due to the alleged illegality of the Privatisation Commission or Authority, whose chairperson and members were irregularly or unconstitutionally appointed and reappointed, rendering all its actions — including the notice to privatise KPC — invalid from the outset.

“This Court has unfettered jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. Doing so would serve the interests of justice, equity, constitutional integrity, and the rule of law,” they told the court.

Please follow and like us:

HIGH COURT SUSPENDS PRESIDENT RUTO’S SH5 TRILLION INFRASTRUCTURE FUND, CITING EXECUTIVE OVERREACH AND VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC FINANCE LAWS.

By Sam Alfan

President William Ruto’s ambitious Sh5 trillion National Infrastructure Fund has been dealt a major legal blow after the High Court issued orders suspending its establishment and operationalization.

In a ruling that strikes at the heart of the administration’s economic transformation agenda, Justice Bahati Mwamuye restrained the Attorney General, National Treasury, National Assembly, Senate, and Controller of Budget from establishing, incorporating, registering, or funding the controversial fund pending hearing and determination of the case.

The court’s conservatory orders follow a constitutional petition filed by four Kenyans—Dr. Magare Gikenyi, a consultant trauma surgeon from Nakuru, along with Eliud Matindi, Philemon Nyakundi, and Dishon Mogire—who argued that the government created the fund illegally through executive fiat without parliamentary approval.

At the center of the legal challenge is the government’s December 15, 2025, State House communiqué announcing Cabinet approval of the National Infrastructure Fund as a limited liability company—a move the petitioners say violates multiple constitutional provisions.

“The respondents purported to create a public fund through executive fiat,” the petition states, arguing that Article 206(1)(a) of the Constitution explicitly requires that any national government public fund must be established through an Act of Parliament or under the Public Finance Management Act 2012—not as a company under the Companies Act.

The petitioners contend that establishing a public fund as a limited liability company “goes against Article 201 of the constitution,” which mandates openness, accountability, public participation in financial matters, and prudent use of public resources.

Justice Mwamuye heard arguments that the government’s actions violated constitutional requirements for transparency and public participation. The court was told that it remains unknown whether the fund was established as a company limited by shares or guarantee, contrary to requirements for timely and accurate public information.

“There is no public participation on establishment of the impugned fund,” the petition emphasized, noting that Article 132(4) requires the President to perform executive functions only as provided for in the Constitution or national legislation.

In a particularly scathing criticism, the petitioners accused both the National Assembly and Senate of “failing in its role by being a bystander while the executive is purporting to create an ad hoc public fund.”

They argued that the fund “operates outside normal budgetary controls” resulting in “reduced parliament oversight and accountability.”

Section 24(2) of the Public Finance Management Act requires that the Cabinet Secretary may only establish a national government public fund “with the approval of the National Assembly”—a step the petitioners say was bypassed entirely.

The petition also raised concerns that the National Infrastructure Fund threatens the Equalization Fund established under Article 204 of the Constitution, which allocates 0.5% of national revenue to provide basic services to marginalized areas.

The petitioners warned the fund “will divert or duplicate functions covered by the equalization fund,” potentially undermining constitutional protections for historically disadvantaged regions.

The petitioners expressed alarm at the government’s stated intention for “strategic monetization of mature public assets” to capitalize the fund, pointing to recent sales of Safaricom shares and attempted privatization of Kenya Pipeline Company.

They argued this signals “a wide scheme to enrich shadowy figures within government cycle for political and economic gains,” drawing parallels to the notorious 1990 Goldenberg scandal.

“Considering the current regime/government is known to be finger itchy to sale of public assets,” the petition states, “it is reasonable to believe that this action is part of” a broader problematic pattern.

The petitioners also questioned the government’s track record on debt management, noting that “successive government has not accounted the over 6.95 Trillion odious debt and specifically the Ruto Government has not accounted the over 4 trillion borrowed.”

The National Infrastructure Fund, as announced by President Ruto, was designed to anchor Kenya’s “long-term development and economic transformation” by financing priority projects including:

• 50 mega dams and 1,000 micro-dams for irrigation
• Dualling of 2,500km of highways
• Tarmacking of 28,000km of roads
• Extension of the Standard Gauge Railway to Malaba
• Adding 10,000 megawatts of new energy capacity

The government had promised that “every shilling invested through the Fund is expected to crowd in up to KSh10 additional shillings from long-term investors.”

Justice Mwamuye directed the petitioners to serve all respondents, the Law Society of Kenya, and Katiba Institute with the application, petition, and court order by close of business December 29, 2025.

The Attorney General, Cabinet Secretary for Treasury, National Assembly, Senate, and Controller of Budget—named as respondents—have yet to file their responses.

The case represents the latest in a series of 2025 court setbacks for the Ruto administration, as judges increasingly scrutinize executive decisions on public finance and define the limits of presidential power under Kenya’s 2010 Constitution.

As the legal battle unfolds, Kenya’s ambitious infrastructure transformation agenda now hangs in the balance, awaiting constitutional clarity on how—and by whom—such massive public funds can lawfully be established.

Please follow and like us:

LAWYER WANTS IEBC COMPELLED TO REVIEW BOUNDARIES BEFORE 2027 GENERAL ELECTION.

By Sam Alfan.

A Nairobi lawyer has sought court orders to block the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) from conducting or supervising elections until it has reviewed electoral boundaries.

Dr. Philip Langat says in a petition to the High court that the electoral body should be barred from conducting or supervising referenda and elections to any elective body or office established by the Constitution, without first reviewing the number, names and boundaries of constituencies and wards.

Lawyer Langat argues that the failure by the IEBC to review the boundaries of constituencies and wards at intervals of not less than eight years is unconstitutional and contrary to article 89 of the Constitution.

He wants the court to compel the electoral body to review the boundaries of constituencies and wards at least 12 months before the 2027 general election.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye directed the lawyer to serve the electoral body with the court documents before January 2.

The court also decided you join the Attorney General, Katiba Institute and Law Society of Kenya (LSK) as interested parties in the matter.

Justice Mwamuye said he will decide on other applications such a request for an expanded bench and interim orders, after other parties have filed their responses.

The case will be mentioned on January 28, for directions.

Dr. Langat had in application requested for the file to be transmitted to the Chief Justice Martha Koome for empanelment of uneven number of Judges.

“Unless this Court intervenes by certifying this application as most urgent and
issuing the orders sought, the Constitutional timeliness of delimitation of electoral units, at least twelve months before a general election of members of Parliament will kick in, thereby occasioning further Constitutional crisis,” says Dr. Langat.

He wants the court to make a determination of Article 89(2) of the Constitution specifically on whether any review completed at least twelve months before a
general election of members of Parliament and more than twelve years can be valid.

“The Determination on whether the time frame for delimitation of electoral
boundaries has lapsed, and what are the remedies, if any and the Determination on whether the general elections can be conducted before the review of the names and boundaries of constituencies and wards,” says lawyer Langat.

Through lawyer Felix Keaton, Dr Langat said IEBC has embarked on putting the cart before the horse, by preparing for general election before first conducting the delimitation of electoral units.

He argued that the People of Kenya shall suffer irreparable and irreversible injury on the basis of changing population quota, geographical features and urban centres; community of interest, historical, economic and cultural ties; and means of communication.

“It is fair, just and expedient that the application be certified urgent and orders sought granted in the first instance ex debito justitia,” says the lawyer.

He argues that Article 89(2) of the Constitution mandates IEBC to review the names and boundaries of constituencies at intervals of not less than eight years, and not more than twelve years.

Article 89(3) of the Constitution further mandates the Commission to review the number, names and boundaries of wards periodically.

He pointed out that Section 26(3) of the County Governments Act further prescribes the time limits for delimitation of wards.

On 6 March 2012, IEBC published the National Assembly Constituencies and County Assembly Wards Order, 2012 in a Legal Notice No. 14 of 2012 (the delimitation order).

This meant that the electoral body ought to have carried out a subsequent delimitation process between 6th March, 2020, 8 years after the delimitation order, and 6th March, 2024, 12 years after the delimitation order.

He said as at 6 March, 2024, the electoral body had not commenced the said review since there were no Commissioners in office.

The vacancies occurred when three Commissioners resigned from office on diverse dates in December 2022.

Another commissioner was removed from office by a tribunal while the other three Commissioners retired upon expiry of their terms of service.

A new team of commissioners were appointed in a gazette notice of 10th July, 2025, for a period of six years.

Dr Langat said IEBC is now fully constituted to carry its Constitutional mandate but it has failed to commence the process of delimitation of electoral units.

He added that from the foregoing, he is inviting the court to invoke Article 165 (2) (d) of the Constitution being jurisdiction to hear
any question respecting the interpretation of the Constitution.

“The Petitioner has identified the following salient questions for Interpretation and determination the interpretation of Article 89(2) of the Constitution specifically on whether any review completed at least twelve months before a general election of members of Parliament and more than twelve years can be valid,” he told the court

Please follow and like us:

KETRACO PLEADS WITH COURT TO SUSPEND ORDER FREEZING ITS BANK ACCOUNTS.

By Sam Alfan.

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited(KETRACO) has urged the High Court to dismiss an objection filed by a Spanish in firm in a dispute over payment of Sh10 billion debt.

KETRACO argue that the objection filed by instalaciones Inabensa S.A was defective and ought to be dismissed.

Through lawyer Dennis Mosota, the electricity transmission company argued that the application before the court is an application for stay of execution of the payment and not an appeal as alleged by the Spanish company.

Lawyer Mosota told the Justice Peter Mulwa that the requirement for leave under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not arise in an application for stay of execution.

“The proceedings arise from the enforcement of an arbitral award and are governed by the Arbitration Act and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court,” KETRACO told the court.

He added that any question relating to change of advocates after judgment is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction.

KETRACO moved to.court to block the payment arising from a botched deal yests ago.

The Spanish firm has already obtained an order freezing Ketraco’s bank accounts in an attempt to get the money.

Lawyer Mosota submitted that on 11 December 2025, the court issued a Garnishee Order attaching all monies held in KETRACO’s bank accounts at NCBA Bank Kenya PLC, Kenya Commercial Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Cooperative Bank of Kenya and Citi Bank.

“By the stroke of this court’s judicial pen, all KETRACO’s operational bank accounts have been frozen, thereby disabling the company from accessing, utilising or deploying funds necessary for the discharge of its mandate,” Mosota told the court.

Justice Mulwa heard that if the order was not suspended, the banks will be compelled to release the attached funds to the Spanish firm.

Lawyer Mosota warned that the move will abruptly halt KETRACO’s operations such as electricity transmission and maintenance of all electricity transmission lines with the potential of plunging the whole country into an electricity blackout.

“Any electricity blackout will equally cripple the Kenyan industrial sectors, and essential services like medical care. Such a scenario could easily portend socio-economic unrest,” court heard.

The court heard that the freezing of the accounts has already caused serious operational paralysis within KETRACO in discharging its core mandate to the country and neighbouring countries that rely on the proper and full functioning of the electricity transmission lines.

The freeze risks industrial and legal action with the appurtenant ramifications, he said.

The electricity company said it was unable to meet its urgent contractual obligations, service loans, procure key inputs and operate the national transmission grid.

“The Garnishee orders issued by Justice Mulwa court effectively halt ongoing projects and threaten stable power transmission nationwide, with severe consequences for public safety, the economy, essential services and energy security,” Mosota submitted.

“It is urgent that the Court intervenes to stay execution, for unless it does so forthwith, the public funds shall be irreversibly dissipated. Instalaciones Inabensa S.A having been liquidated cannot be said to be a going concern capable of refunding any moneys carted away on the strength of the Garnishee orders; a fact which is not denied,” court

KETRACO said in the event it’s appeal is successful, it will bear the ignominy of a pyrrhic victory.

“Without the timely intervention of the court; by way of suspending of execution, KETRACO’s statutory mandate will be fundamentally defeated; at an immeasurable cost to the State,” court heard.

Lawyer Mosota told the court that no prejudice shall be occasioned to the Spanish company by the grant of a temporary stay, whereas refusal to grant the same shall occasion irreparable harm to KETRACO and the Kenyan public at large.

KETRACO is ready and willing to furnish this Honourable Court with a bank guarantee as security to satisfy the grant of an order of stay of execution

KETRACO company secretary and General manager legal service Florence Mitey told the court that the legal and practical effect of the the Garnishee rder Nisi is that the company is unable to access its funds and, unless stayed, the order is liable to be made absolute, compelling the garnishees to release the funds to the Spanish firm.

Mitey said the freezing of Ketraco’s accounts and any ensuing Garnishee order absolute will immediately cripple Ketraco’s ability to operate and maintain electricity transmission infrastructure, meet contractual obligations and sustain ongoing projects, thereby disrupting electricity transmission countrywide.

The decretal sum arises from a Final Arbitral Award dated 30 July 2019 relating to the Lessos-Tororo 400kV Transmission Line Project.

The Award granted the Spanish a principal sum of EUR 30,887,820.39, interest accrued as at 30th July 2019 of EUR 6,477,870.77 and Sh. 102,165,144.20 in costs, with interest continuing to accrue at rates of up to 18% per annum

She added that the magnitude of the award and the accruing interest far exceeds the applicant’s financial capacity and asset base.

Consequently, immediate enforcement thereof by way of the garnishee orders issued will bring the Applicant’s activities to an abrupt halt, contrary to public policy and the interests of justice.

Please follow and like us:

COURT BLOCKS SH10 BILLION CONTESTED PAY DUE TO SPANISH ARISING FROM BOTCHED DEAL.

By Sam Alfan.

It is a huge reprieve for Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) after High Court blocks the any payments or transfer of funds to Spanish firm Inabensa Enerji A.S.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye restrained Ketraco, Ketraco board, CS Energy,CS Treasury and Attorney General, jointly or severally, and whether by themselves, their officers, agents, servants, or otherwise howsoever, from authorizing, approving, processing, facilitating, or effecting any release, transfer, remittance, or disbursement of public funds, whether directly or indirectly, howsoever arising, in favour of Inabensa Enerji A.Ş or any related or associated entity.

Court further directed KETRACO, KETRACO board, CS Energy,CS Treasury and AG to collate and preserve all records, approvals, instructions,correspondence, payment instruments, and internal or external communications relating to, connected with, or arising from the subject matter.

This is after Lalashe consulting filed application seeking to block payments done to Inabensa Enerji A.Ş over a botched deal.

The consulting urged the court to stop any payments made to the firm pending hearing and determination of the case.

They urged the court to declare that the proposed release or disbursement of public funds in favour of the beneficiary entity, in circumstances where no work was done and no public infrastructure delivered, is unconstitutional, unlawful, and void.

The consulting firm also urged the court to issue a order prohibiting permanently barring the government from releasing any public funds in respect of the impugned contracts unless and until full constitutional compliance, including demonstrable value for money, established to the satisfaction of the Court.

In the petition, the firm seeks the court to make a declaration that any public officer who authorises or facilitates the release of public funds contrary to this judgment shall be personally liable under Article 226(5) of the Constitution.

Further , the court to issue an order directing the government to preserve and produce all records, approvals, instructions, and correspondence relating to the proposed payment.

The consulting firm argued that the threatened release of public funds violates Article 201 of the Constitution, which mandates openness, accountability, prudence, and responsible use of public resources. Expenditure without demonstrable public value offends this Article in
its entirety.

Article 201 must be read parimateria with Article 10, which entrenches national values including integrity, transparency, accountability, good governance, and
sustainable development. A decision to pay billions for a paper project violates both provisions simultaneously.

“The impugned conduct further violates Article 73, which provides that authority assigned to a State officer is a public trust to be exercised in a manner that brings honour to the nation and promotes public confidence. Rewarding nonperformance does the opposite,” court heard.

Article 75, read together with Article 73, prohibits conduct that undermines public trust or demeans public office. Authorising payment in the face of total nonperformance and insolvency squarely offends this command. Article 226(5) imposes personal liability on any public officer who approves the use of public funds contrary to law.

“This provision is preventive as much as it is
punitive and exists to arrest unconstitutional expenditure before it occurs. Articles 201 and 226(5) must be read together. The former sets the principles of public finance; the latter supplies the enforcement mechanism. To ignore one is to render the other meaningless,” court heard.

The threatened payment also undermines Article 2, which declares the Constitution supreme. No process, contract, or claim can justify conduct that offends constitutional principles governing public finance.Read cumulatively, Articles 1, 2, 10, 73, 201 and 226(5) establish that public officers are stewards, not owners, of public resources, and stewardship is incompatible with monetising failure.

Please follow and like us:

REPRIEVE FOR FIRM ACCUSED OF ENCROACHING ON NGONG RIVER BANK.

By Sam Alfan.

It is big win for British Press limited after the Environment court quashed an order requiring it demolish a section of its property for allegedly encroaching on Ngong River.

The company has a reason to celebrate after the court ruled that it had nit encroached on riparian land.

In a notice last year, the Ministry of Interior issued an order directing the company to demolish sections of its property in Industrial Area, on claims of encroaching in riparian land.

But the Environment and Land court ruled that the suit property Land Reference No. 209/18655 (Grant No. I.R 101466/4) situate along Enterprise Road, Industrial Area, Nairobi County, including the boundary wall, buildings, printing press, packaging facilities constructed thereon and compound do not form or is not part of the riparian reserve of the Ngong River.

Justice Anne Omollo said the notice by the government on May 2, 2024 threatened to violate the firm’s right to protection of their property under Article 40 of the Constitution and therefore illegal, null and void.

“An order of Certiorari be and is hereby issued to remove into this Court for purposes of being quashed Interioy’s Public Security (Vacation or Mandatory) Orders dated/issued on 2 May 2024 as relates to the British Press ltd,” ruled the court.

The court issued a permanent order blocking the government or its agents from
breaking, demolishing or evicting the company from the land.

Justice Omollo further issued orders compelling National Environment Management Authority (Nema), Nairobi City County and Ministry of Environment and Forestry to remove the waste dumped in the Ngong River or along the river-bank adjacent to the British Press’s suit Property.

The cleanup should be carried out within four months from the date of the judgement.

The three institutions were also compelled to ensure that no waste is dumped in the Ngong River or along the river-bank adjacent to the firm’s property.

The court said there was evidence of prolonged dumping by third parties and regulatory inaction by multiple agencies.

The court added that environmental protection is a shared constitutional obligation under Articles 42 and 69.

“While the Court is cautious not to usurp statutory mandates, it is empowered to issue structural and supervisory orders to ensure compliance with constitutional duties,” said the judge.

The Judge held that the illegal dumpsite would endanger the environment (the Petitioner included) and which requires action to be taken.

The court said Article 70 of the Constitution, gives authority to any person to take out proceedings where their right to a clean and healthy environment is infringed and or is likely to be violated.

“This Court is empowered to grant appropriate reliefs, including declarations,
orders of certiorari, and injunctive relief. Given the findings above, British Press ltd is entitled to declaratory orders affirming that its property does not form part of the riparian reserve and that the impugned Public Security Orders are unconstitutional
and void,” said Judge.

The company said the suit property was lawfully created by the amalgamation of several parcels following approval by the former Nairobi City Council in 2005.

This is reflected in the Deed Plans of 2006 and 2008, said the firm.

The firm submitted that the plans consistently show the river boundary on the northern edge of the Ngong River, and the validity of its title has never been challenged.

The company stated that it obtained all necessary development approvals, including building approvals (2004 and 2006) and an EIA Licence (No. 0000200) issued in 2005.

None of these approvals have been revoked, added the company.

British Press ltd said that after completing its developments, unknown third parties began illegally dumping excavated soil along the Ngong River bank bordering the Suit Property.

The firm said it repeatedly notified the defunct Nairobi City Council, and later Nairobi City County and NEMA, that the dumping was obstructing the river’s natural flow.

However, none of the authorities took any remedial action. Between 2009 and 2012, the dumping escalated into a large, illegal dumpsite extending toward it’s boundary wall.

British Press ltd stated that it submitted an Initial Environmental Audit in 2009, which NEMA found satisfactory.

However, their numerous written complaints from 2008 to 2018 to NEMA and County officials did not result in any intervention.

In July 2019, British Press ltd requested verification of the riparian reserve from WRA, which confirmed in its 20 September 2019 report that the Suit Property borders the Ngong River.

The report noted that the opposite riverbank was being used for illegal solid waste dumping, which had pushed the river towards the firm’s side, and that erosion was evident on both banks.

NEMA acknowledged receiving several reports from the company about illegal waste dumping along the Ngong River and confirmed that such incidents were always formally acknowledged.

However, the regulatir said waste management is a devolved function.

NEMA said it forwarded the complaints to the Nairobi City County, whose mandate includes the designation, management, and decommissioning of dumpsites.

NEMA asserted that although it licenses British Press ltd , the responsibility for managing dumpsites and regulating water resources lies primarily with Nairobi City County and Water Resources Authority.

Therefore, those agencies, are best placed to address the issues arising from the Interior Ministry’s orders of NEMA May 2024.

Nairobi County on its part stated that it has consistently taken reasonable measures to discharge its duties, including enforcement actions, clean-ups, and public awareness campaigns, despite resource constraints.

The county government denied any involvement in or condonation of illegal dumping along the Ngong River.

It contended that British Press ltd neither established the County’s responsibility nor provided actionable, site-specific intelligence in its past correspondence to facilitate sustained enforcement.

Nairobi County further explained that illegal dumping along the Ngong River is a longstanding problem driven by unidentified third parties and criminal cartels,occurring sporadically and often at night, which complicates enforcement.

Given the multi-agency nature of environmental protection, the County argues that it cannot bear sole responsibility where national agencies such as NEMA and the Water Resources Authority also have jurisdiction.

The devolved unit expressed its willingness to collaborate with all stakeholders through joint inspections and mitigation plans.

Please follow and like us:

ICC DECRIES ATTACKS DIRECTED AT JUDICIAL OFFICERS BY USA GOVERNMENT.

By Sam Alfan.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected sanctions designation against two of its judges by the USA government.

The ICC said it deplores the announcement of new designations for sanctions by the US administration against Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze (Georgia) and Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin (Mongolia).

“These sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its States Parties from across regions,” said ICC.

The Hague based court said such measures targeting judges and prosecutors who were elected by the States Parties undermine the rule of law.

According to ICC, the additional designations follow an earlier designation of nine elected officials of the Judiciary and the Office of the Prosecutor, drawn from all regional groups.

“When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk,” said ICC.

In a statement ICC said the Court stands firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities.

The court said it will continue to carry out its mandate with independence and impartiality, in full accordance with the Rome Statute and in the interest of victims of international crimes.

“The ICC values the consistent demonstrations of solidarity of States Parties, civil society and all those who support the rule of law and justice for the victims of international crimes.

“The Court will continue its work, with all partners, to ensure the effective and independent implementation of its mandate,” said the Hague based court.

Please follow and like us:

THREE SACCO OFFICIALS AND AGENT CHARGED WITH STEALING MILLIONS FROM AN ASSOCIATION.

By Phoebe Wanjohi.

Three men among them an accountant and bank agent have been charged with stealing Sh13 million from an association.

Joshua Kipruto Ng’etich (accountant) Ernest Njenga Thiru and Derrick Kiprono Ng’eno were presented before Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Benmark Ekhubi where they denied the charges.

The prosecution told the court that the accused persons conspired to steal on diverse dates between January 2022 and 31 January, 2024 in Nairobi.

It was that Kipruto being an accountant at African Airlines Association stole Sh. 13.756,798 the property of the Association which came into his possession by virtue of his employment.

The charges stated that they committed the offence on diverse dates between January 1, 2022 and November 21, 2023 at the association’s offices at South C in Nairobi County.

Thiiru, a bank agent with the Association was also accused of stealing Sh. 13,756,798 belonging the association.

Kipruto and Newmark business solutions are accused of stealing USD 35,520 the property of the association.

He was also charged with forging documents and presenting that as duly signed by Symon Peter Cheruiyot.

The three were released on a bond of Sh1 million or alternative cash bail of Sh300,000.

Please follow and like us:

AFYA SACCO SOCIETY OFFICIALS DENY DEFRAUDING ORGANISATION SH70 MILLION.

By NT Correspondent.

Three senior officials jave been charged with defrauding a savings and credit organisation of Sh60 million.

Evans Mung’ahu Kola, Fredrick Kuya Libako and Mumina Mutinda Ingui are alleged to have defrauding Afya Sacco Society Limited of the amount.

They appeared before Milimani Senior Principal Benmark Ekhubi and denied the charges.

According to the prosecution, the three committed the offense on diverse dates between 20 April, 2021 and 31 January, 2025 at Afya Sacco Society Ltd in Nairobi.

The court heard that they conspired to commit the offence, jointly with another not before court.

The charge stated that they created fraudulent deposits and subsequent withdrawals from FOSA (Front Office Service Activity) accounts falsely pretending that the deposits and withdrawals were genuine.

It is alleged that their acts led to loss of Sh 40,169,165.69 belonging to Afya Sacco Society Ltd

Mung’ahu and Ingui were also accused of jointly using Sh. 24,950,999, which they ought to.have known was suspect money.

According to the charge sheet, they committed the offence on diverse dates between 6 December,2021 and 22 May 2025 at Afya Sacco Society Ltd in Nairobi County.

It was further alleged tjat being the manager of AMCA (Afya Micro Credit Activities) at Afya Sacco Society Ltd, Mung’ahu and Ingui stole Sh 40,169,165.69 from Afya Sacco Society Ltd.

The court was told that the money came into their possession by virtue of their employment.

Mung’ahu is further accused of using Sh. 2,801,616 belonging to Afya Sacco, whicg he ought to jave knwown that the money were proceeds of crime.

It is alleged that he committed the offence on diverse dates between 31st May 2021 and 21st August, 2024 at Afya Sacco Society Ltd.

The court ordered them to deposit bond of Sh.4 million each or alternative cash bail of Sh.2 million to secure their release.

Please follow and like us:

JOURNALIST RABURU NOW WITHDRAWS SH10 MILLION SUIT AGAINST EABL.

By Sam Alfan.

A digital communication company linked to journalist Willis Raburu has withdrawn a compensation suit it had filed against maker East African Breweries ltd (EABL).

Raburu and his company withdrew the case against EABL saying he had to find another way to get his Sh10 million pay.

“Take notice. That the Plaintiff herein wishes to withdraw all the Applications and the suit dated 9th December 2025 in its entirety against the Respondents, with no orders as to costs,” stated the notice dated December 11, 2025.

However, it has emerged the company has now filed another case before Milimani Commercial Magistrate court which has jurisdiction to hear and determined the case.

Steizon ltd associated had asked the court to suspend, revoke, or otherwise cancel EABL’s operating licence until the firm paid him his dues.

Court documents stated that the company entered into a binding contractual engagement with Game Charger Marketing ltd and EABL for professional influencing, digital promotion, branding and visibility, logistical execution, and event coordination services.

This was in relation to the Furaha City Festival event, which was scheduled for 7 December 2024, at an agreed contract value of Sh10 million (exclusive of VAT).

Steizon ltd says it duly performed all obligations under the said contract, including producing over sixty reels, publishing over one hundred static posts, achieving a social media reach of over one million users, and securing collaborations with artists and influencers.

The company said it also coordinated the full management of the event, including organizing teams, hiring influencers, liaising with media and graphics personnel, and collaborating with security to ensure the smooth execution of the event.

And despite full performance, the firm says EABL has failed, neglected or refused to remit the agreed sum of Sh10 million, thereby breaching the contractual obligations owed to the firm.

“Unless the Court urgently intervenes, the Applicant’s rights will continue to be violated by Game Charge Marketing ltd and EABL,” said the firm in the court documents.

The company further sought a court order declaring that Game Charger Marketing ltd acted with actual or apparent authority as an agent of EABL, and that all engagements, communications, and agreements facilitated through Game Charger Marketing ltd were valid, binding, and undertaken within EABL’s mandate and operational framework.

Please follow and like us: