The High Court has frozen a parcel of land and six motor vehicles linked to Mbeti North Member of County Assembly(MCA) Peter Murithi Nyaga and five others in a Sh.111.5 million asset recovery suit filed by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
Justice Joseph Kipkoech Biwott ruled that EACC had established a prima facie case warranting the preservation of the disputed properties pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
EACC moved to court seeking to preserve the assets, alleging that they were acquired using proceeds from irregular road maintenance tenders awarded by the Embu County Government between the 2017/2018 and 2023/2024 financial years.
According to the commission, investigations established that 20 road maintenance contracts worth Sh.111,577,188.75 were awarded to five companies allegedly associated with Nyaga. The commission accused the MCA of using his position and influence in county assembly committees dealing with infrastructure, roads, public works, housing and energy to benefit companies linked to him and members of his family.
EACC further told the court that proceeds from the contracts were allegedly used to acquire land reference number Mbeti/Kiamuringa/49, registered in the name of Truco Enterprises Limited at a cost of Sh.9 million, alongside six motor vehicles registered in the names of companies associated with the defendants.
The commission sought court orders to prevent the defendants from selling, transferring, charging or otherwise dealing with the properties before the recovery proceedings are concluded. However, Nyaga and the other defendants opposed the application, arguing that the MCA neither awarded nor controlled public procurement contracts, which they maintained fell within the mandate of the county executive.
They further argued that the companies were separate legal entities and that the disputed properties had been acquired through legitimate business income and bank financing. The defendants also warned that freezing the vehicles, machinery and other assets would disrupt ongoing construction and public infrastructure contracts, expose them to contractual penalties and cause substantial financial losses.
In his ruling, Justice Biwott found that EACC had met the legal threshold for the preservation orders, noting the need to safeguard the properties pending the determination of the recovery suit.
“Accordingly, I find that the Plaintiff has met the legal threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction to preserve the suit properties pending the final hearing and determination of this suit,” the judge ruled.
The judge further cautioned against allowing the disputed assets to be disposed of before the case is determined.
“If the assets are dissipated, wasted or sold, it would exhaust colossal amounts of public funds and time just to trace them, leaving nothing left to forfeit,” Justice Biwott stated.
However, the court also considered the defendants’ concerns over the commercial consequences of the preservation orders, particularly the disruption of ongoing infrastructure projects.
“Grounding these assets entirely risks rapid physical deterioration, substantial financial waste and the disruption of public infrastructure contracts,” the judge observed.
Consequently, the court partly allowed the defendants’ application to vary the preservation orders, permitting restricted and supervised commercial use of the assets subject to safeguards against their disposal or transfer.
The defendants, their agents, servants and employees were restrained from selling, transferring, assigning, charging or otherwise disposing of or encumbering the disputed land and six motor vehicles pending the final determination of the suit.
