SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Assets Recovery Agency v Charity Wangui Gethi & another [2021] KEHC 8627 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 8627 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8627
Citation
[2021] KEHC 8627 (KLR)
Decided
25 February 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ForfeiturePostureApplication for Civil Forfeiture
Holding

The court finds that the funds are proceeds of crime and should be forfeited to the State.

Facts

The Assets Recovery Agency (Agency) seeks the forfeiture of funds amounting to Kshs 97,682,424 held in the names of Charity Wangui Gethi and Samuel M. Mwadime. The funds were allegedly stolen from the National Youth Service (NYS) and part of a money laundering scheme.

Issues

  1. Whether the funds are proceeds of crime
  2. Whether the funds should be forfeited to the State
  3. Whether the application violates the respondents' right to property and fair hearing
  4. Whether the forfeiture proceedings are dependent on the criminal proceedings

Reasoning

The court considers the evidence and legal framework, concluding that the funds are proceeds of crime and should be forfeited.

Outcome

The court orders the forfeiture of the funds to the State.

Orders

  • The funds amounting to Kshs 97,682,424 held in the names of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the following bank accounts are declared to be proceeds of crime and liable for forfeiture to the Government.
  • The funds be forfeited to the Government and transferred to the Applicant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (1)
  • Republic v Ministry of Health & 3 Others ex parte Kennedy Amdany & 27 Others (2018) eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case