Thika Law Courts Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo has moved to court seeking to compel the EACC to release her official phone, which was confiscated, arguing that the move has crippled operations at the courts as she needs her phone to work.
In an application through lawyers Danstan Omari and Shadrack Wambui, Atambo argues that the unlawful confiscation of her official phone has crippled essential functions at Thika Law Courts.
For instance, refunds, contractor payments, and case-related transactions have stalled, creating a backlog that worsens with each passing day.
On Friday, Anti-Corruption Chief Magistrate Harrison Baraza certified the application as urgent and directed it to be heard on Monday.
Atambo claims that the EACC seized the phone despite a valid court order barring any adverse actions against her and that it was neither recorded in the inventory nor legally justified, rendering it blatantly illegal.
According to court papers, the post-order seizure of her phone is an abuse of power that undermines judicial authority.
“The Applicant, as Chief Magistrate and Head of Station, is unable to discharge core functions, including receiving/responding to Ombudsman complaints for judicial officers under her or overseeing court operations. This unlawful interference with the administration of justice threatens the integrity of the judiciary,” states the court documents.
Atambo says the continued withholding of the phone has already resulted in a breakdown of essential court services, with dire consequences for litigants, contractors, and the judicial process.
Omari says that despite full knowledge of the court order—and in the presence of Atambo’s lawyer Shadrack Wambui, who unequivocally reiterated its existence and objected to the unlawful confiscation—EACC, through Stephen Wanyama, disregarded the court’s directive and forcibly took possession of the phone without any legal justification.
It is their further contention that the seized phone was not included in the inventory of items taken, raising serious concerns about the deliberate and unlawful nature of its confiscation.
“The omission appears to have been intentional, designed to conceal the illegality of the seizure, evade judicial scrutiny, and circumvent accountability for a manifest violation of the court order. Moreover, to our knowledge, the inventory itself was never signed, reinforcing the fact that the phone was not lawfully seized but rather taken arbitrarily and without due process,” states the court documents.
They also claim that the court’s procurement and fiscal processes are directly linked to her official and registered phone number and that any financial disbursement—whether refunds of bail deposits, payments to contractors, or court-mandated financial transactions—requires an approval process that triggers a one-time password (OTP) sent to that very phone.
She argues that the accountants cannot process payments, contractors engaged on-site cannot receive their dues, and refunds to court users remain stalled.
“The station now faces potential liability for breach of contract, and litigants awaiting refunds are suffering undue prejudice. The entire administration of the court has been paralyzed,” the petition states.
