The Court of Appeal has turned down a request from the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) to freeze the release of funds belonging to former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko.
In a ruling delivered by a three-judge bench, the court explained that it cannot legally suspend a “negative order” – a type of ruling that simply dismisses a case – issued by the High Court.
The agency moved to the appellate court to pause a decision made by Justice Nixon Sifuna on October 1, 2025. In that earlier ruling, the High Court dismissed the ARA’s forfeiture lawsuit, ordered the agency to pay the legal costs of the case, and lifted the existing freeze orders on Sonko’s bank accounts.
Justice Sifuna ruled that the ARA failed to prove that the money in the former governor’s accounts came from criminal activity. He pointed out several major gaps in the agency’s investigation, including selective investigation by focusing on specific details while ignoring others, a lack of formal witness statements, and failure to confirm the authenticity of property sale documents.
The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Kathurima M’inoti, Chacha Mwita, and Bryam Ongaya, ruled that the law offers nothing to “stay” or pause in this specific situation.
During the proceedings, Justice M’inoti asked the ARA’s legal team to clarify exactly what they wanted the court to suspend.
“What you are seeking is a stay of execution based on the decision of Justice Sifuna,” he observed. “In the judgment, in the pertinent part, he says, ‘In consequence, this suit fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.’ You are aware of consistent decisions of this Court that it cannot issue an order of stay of execution in respect of a dismissal.”
The Justice pointed out that the Court of Appeal has remained consistent across at least ten previous rulings on this issue. He explained that the court cannot suspend a negative order.
Senior Counsel Harrison Kinyanjui, representing the former governor, acknowledged the court’s existing legal standards when the bench questioned him. He admitted that he had previously made similar arguments and respected the court’s established precedents.
However, ARA’s lawyer, Esther Muchiri, urged the judges to look at Section 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA). She argued that filing an appeal automatically keeps the freeze orders active until the court reaches a final decision. Since these funds have remained frozen since February 2020, she insisted they should stay untouched while the main appeal proceeds.
Justice M’inoti quickly spotted a logical flaw in the agency’s argument:
“If it is automatic under Section 97, then your application is not necessary,” he said.
He clarified that the court was currently only deciding on a “stay of execution” request, not interpreting the specific language of the statute.
Justice Chacha Mwita pushed the agency’s lawyer further for a clear answer: “We can only stay the decision of the superior court. But that decision dismissed your suit. So what is it you want us to stay?”
Muchiri clarified that the agency simply wants to block any withdrawal of the money while they fight the case on appeal.
The bench remained firm: they cannot pause a dismissal order, and Section 97 does not give them the authority to change that in this specific application.
The judges then gave the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) a choice: withdraw the request now or face a formal dismissal along with an order to pay legal costs. After a quick huddle, the ARA’s lawyer, Esther Muchiri, chose to withdraw the application “subject to the court’s guidance and in view of Section 97.”
Harrison Kinyanjui didn’t object to the withdrawal but asked the court to leave Section 97 out of the final record. He also requested that the ARA pay his client’s legal fees for the day.
Meanwhile, the judges refused to get dragged into a debate about how Section 97 works. Since the motion was being withdrawn, they decided not to interpret that specific law today.
The only remaining question is who picks up the tab for this part of the legal battle. The court will deliver a ruling on the legal costs on March 13, 2026.
The post Mike Sonko Frozen Funds Case Takes Twist After Judges Question ARA’s Legal Strategy appeared first on Bossnana.
