Sonko wins court battle as judge rejects the State's bid to seize Sh28 million

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko. [File, Standard]

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko got a major reprieve after the High Court rejected an attempt by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) to seize Sh28 million held in various bank accounts.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Nixon Sifuna on October 1, 2025, the court dismissed ARA’s forfeiture case after finding that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the funds held in Sonko’s bank accounts were proceeds of crime.

“The evidence so far on record is insufficient to support the assertion that the funds flagged by the Applicant and which are the subject of these proceedings, and are on various of the Respondent’s Bank Accounts, are proceeds of crime,” Justice Sifuna ruled.

“There is therefore no legal basis for ordering forfeiture of the said funds to the Kenya Government as proceeds of crime. In consequence, this suit fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.”

The judge ordered that the funds which had been preserved under court orders issued in February 2020, be released to Sonko unless they were being held for another lawful purpose.

The case involved Sh16 million spread across seven accounts and US dollars 67,906.43 held in three accounts at Equity Bank and Diamond Trust Bank.

The funds included Sh4.24 million, Sh1.46 million, Sh2.9 million, Sh2.69 million and Sh1.29 million in various Equity Bank accounts, as well as Sh2.23 million at Diamond Trust Bank and Sh1.16 million at Co-operative Bank.

The dollar accounts held USD20,906.90, USD7,573.03 and USD39,426.50.

ARA had argued that investigations showed Sonko received suspicious cash deposits between August 2017 and December 2019, which it alleged pointed to money laundering and proceeds of crime.

The Agency sought forfeiture of the funds under Sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).

But Justice Sifuna faulted the quality of the investigations by ARA, stressing that investigators were required to establish their case with credible evidence despite the lower civil standard of proof.

“These are the conventional investigation protocols. In corruption matters the Investigators should maintain a high bar and quality, no matter whether the investigations are for criminal prosecution or civil forfeiture suit,” the judge said.

The judge added: “On both sides of the coin (Applicant and Respondent or Prosecutor and the Accused), there must be some evidence for each side’s claim.”

ARA had alleged that the funds could not be satisfactorily explained and sought to have them forfeited to the State.

Sonko denied that the funds were proceeds of crime, telling the court that they were derived from legitimate business activities and property transactions.

He said he had generated money through matatu operations, restaurants, real estate and the sale of several properties, including parcels in Kwale, and produced documents to support his explanation. 

The court found the Agency had not sufficiently disproved his explanations.