logo

Bank fails to secure order in Sh1.2bn forfeiture suit against ministry official

The bank filed an application seeking to have the orders freezing the properties reviewed.

image
by SUSAN MUHINDI

News17 October 2024 - 07:55

In Summary


  • The properties are part of Sh1.2bn assets targeted by the Ethics and Anticorruption Commission (EACC)
  • The judge said the bank should wait until the case is determined not unless there are exceptional circumstances 

The National Bank of Kenya has lost a bid to unfreeze five properties belonging to a Lands official in a Sh1.2bn forfeiture suit.

Justice Nixon Sifuna dismissed the application filed by the bank saying they should wait for the outcome of the case filed by the anti-graft agency.

The properties are part of Sh1.2bn assets targeted by the Ethics and Anticorruption Commission (EACC).

They seek to have them forfeited to the state on the grounds that they were allegedly acquired through corrupt schemes.

But the bank filed an application seeking to have the orders freezing the properties reviewed on grounds that they had been charged to them as security for loans.

The Judge in his ruling said the bank should wait until the court decides whether the property was corruptly acquired and is forfeiture or whether it was properly acquired and is for the release.

"The bank should during the pendency of such proceedings keep off the matter and the subject property, until the suit is determined," he said In closing.

The Judge said once any property is alleged to be tainted or is subject to a corruption case, the same cannot be released until the case is determined or when there are exceptional circumstances.

"They should thus exercise a vulture's patience and wait for the final whistle at the end of the proceedings," he added.

In the case, EACC moved to court in June 2022 and obtained orders blocking Nicholas Ochiel from selling or transferring houses, land and cars targeted for forfeiture to the state.

They alleged that the assets were obtained in a corrupt manner.

Ochiel on the other hand challenged the commission's case saying they did not specify the property targeted for investigations.

He also took issue with the commission's failure to specify the time frame of the probe.


logo© The Star 2024. All rights reserved