How Sonko won case seeking to freeze Sh574 million
Crime and Justice
By
Nancy Gitonga
| Mar 26, 2026
The Court of Appeal has rejected the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) attempt to freeze Sh574 million linked to former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko held in five bank accounts.
In a ruling rendered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Kathurima M’Inoti, Justice Enock Chacha Mwita, and Justice Byram Ongaya, the appellate court declined to grant the state agency’s application for stay of execution of a High Court judgment pending appeal.
"To the extent that the applicant seeks an order of stay of execution against a judgment dismissing its suit, the Court cannot issue such an order. Accordingly, the applicant's notice of motion dated January 26 2026 has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent. It is so ordered," The judges ruled.
The dispute arose from an appeal in which ARA sought to halt the execution of a judgment delivered on October 1, 2025, by the High Court in the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division.
At the heart of the matter was ARA’s bid to preserve funds held in various bank accounts belonging to Sonko, which the agency alleged were proceeds of crime as a result of theft from Nairobi County government during his tenure as the governor.
However, the High Court judge Nixon Sifuna had earlier dismissed the ARA's forfeiture case, ruling that the agency failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the funds to money laundering or any criminal activity.
“The evidence so far on record, is insufficient to support the assertion that the funds flagged by the Applicant… are proceeds of crime. There is therefore no legal basis for ordering forfeiture… In consequence, this suit fails and is hereby dismissed with costs,” Justice Sifuna ruled.
ARA subsequently moved to the Court of Appeal seeking a stay of execution pending the determination of its appeal.
Through its counsel, Ms. Muchiri, the agency argued that provisions under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA) allowed preservation orders to remain in force.
However, Sonko’s legal team, led by Harrison Kinyanjui, opposed the application, arguing that the Court could not stay a “negative order”, a ruling that simply dismisses a case without compelling any party to act.
In its determination, the appellate court agreed with Sonko, reiterating long-standing legal principles on stay applications.
“But what is there to be executed under the judgment, the subject of the intended appeal? The High Court has merely dismissed the suit… There is nothing arising out of the High Court judgment for this Court… to enforce,” the M'Inoti led bench observed,
The judges emphasized that a dismissal order does not require any party to do or refrain from doing anything, and therefore cannot be stayed.
“In similar terms… the dismissal order cannot be enforced and is not capable of execution. It is not a positive order requiring any party to do or to refrain from doing anything,” the Court stated.
The bench further questioned ARA’s reliance on POCAMLA provisions while still seeking a stay from the Court.
“The first irony in the applicant’s submissions is that, if truly, section 97 of POCAMLA grants it an automatic continuation of the preservation order… then why pursue an application for stay of execution in this Court?” the judges posed.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the application lacked merit.
“To the extent that the applicant seeks an order of stay of execution against a judgment dismissing its suit, the Court cannot issue such an order. Accordingly, the applicant’s notice of motion… has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to Sonko,” the judges ruled.