The High Court has cleared the way for investigations and possible prosecution of a City Lawyer, Joseph Kimani Wachira, over allegations of soliciting and receiving a bribe on behalf of a Judge.
Justice Joseph Kipkoech Biomdo dismissed Wachira’s petition seeking to stop the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) from investigating and prosecuting him over the alleged bribery scheme involving former Justice Joseph Mutava, who is now deceased, and Okiri Thomas Awili
The lawyer had moved the High Court seeking to stop the investigation and intended prosecution after he was arrested by EACC detectives over requesting a financial advantage of Sh 10 million from Former CS Raphael Tuju in a bid to influence a ruling on his commercial case over Karen dispute land.
In a judgment delivered, Justice Biomdo, however, ruled that Wachira had failed to demonstrate illegality or violations of his constitutional rights to warrant the court’s intervention.
“The court finds the petition unmeritorious and it is dismissed in its entirety. For avoidance of doubt, all interim orders granted herein are vacated,” the judge ruled.
The decision lifts the interim orders that had shielded Wachira from arrest and prosecution pending the determination of his petition, allowing the anti-graft agency to proceed with its investigations.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by former Cabinet Secretary Tuju on March 9, 2026, alleging that Wachira, Awili and the late Mutava had solicited Sh10 million to secure a favourable ruling from a sitting High Court judge.
The money was allegedly intended to influence the outcome of a commercial dispute involving Dari Limited and Tuju against Garam Investment Auctioneers and others in case number HCCOMM/E636/2024.
According to the EACC, the three were arrested at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen after investigators facilitated the recording of conversations and provided treated money during the operation.
The commission told the court that Tuju had reported the alleged bribery and that investigators acted on the complaint by gathering evidence before arresting the suspects.
However, Wachira denied soliciting or receiving a bribe, arguing that the operation was a pre-arranged entrapment.
He claimed that Tuju produced Sh1 million during their meeting without any prior demand or discussion and that he did not take the money.
He further accused the state of manufacturing evidence, unlawfully leaking recordings to the public and violating his constitutional rights.
But Justice Biomdo rejected the entrapment argument, finding that the EACC had not induced the alleged offence or set up the meeting.
“The 2nd Respondent’s role was strictly limited to facilitating the collection of evidence. It neither set up the meeting nor influenced the discussions therein. Based on these facts, I find that there was no entrapment,” the judge ruled.
The court noted that the evidence before it indicated that Wachira had attended the meeting voluntarily and that the discussions were a continuation of an earlier conversation.
The judge observed that Tuju, as a participant in the meeting, recorded the discussions and produced Sh1 million in treated currency.
At the time of the arrest, Awili was allegedly counting the money.
However, the judge cautioned that the matter was still at the investigative stage and that no formal charges had been preferred at the time of the judgment.
“While some elements constitute contested facts requiring further inquiry, the events leading to the meeting of March 9, 2026, the meeting itself, and the subsequent events are largely uncontroverted,” he said.
Justice Biomdo further held that the EACC had acted within its legal mandate to investigate corruption and bribery allegations after receiving Tuju’s complaint.
The court found that Wachira had failed to demonstrate that the investigations were malicious, unlawful or unsupported by a factual basis.
The judge also declined to determine claims concerning the alleged leaking of recordings, saying questions about the admissibility of evidence and the fairness of any eventual trial should be considered by the trial court if charges are brought.
“The determination of whether leaked evidence compromises the fairness of the trial remains properly vested in the trial court considering criminal charges, if and when they are preferred,” he ruled.
The court ordered Wachira to bear the costs of the petition.
