High Court extends order unfreezing Humphrey Kariuki’s firms bank accounts
The Director of Public Prosecutions has suffered a blow after the High Court declined to reverse an order unfreezing accounts of several companies associated with businessman Humphrey Kariuki.
Justice Luka Kimaru on Wednesday ordered that the status quo to remain over alleged freezing of banks accounts belonging to the companies.
This after the DPP through Catherine Mwaniki sought to have the orders reinstated having been stayed by Chief Magistrate in Kiambu court as she sought an adjournment in the case by Africa Spirits Limited before the High Court.
Kimaru directed that parties to file their rewritten submissions and the application contesting the alleged orders be heard inter parties on September 24.
The accounts were frozen on allegations of investigations into failure ot pay tax amounting to Sh 41 billion that is subjects matter of criminal case brought against the directors of the company.
Among the issues the court will determine include the legality of the extracted order which a court in Kiambu reversed on Friday last week on the basis that it was not sought.
The matter came up on Tuesday but it was adjourned after the Kenya Revenue Authority asked to be enjoined.
Mwaniki had argued that a magistrate’s court in Kiambu reversed its freeze order when it knew there was already a related case in the High Court.
Lawyer Cecil Miller however objected to the application for an adjournment, saying the delay was detrimental to the businesses involved.
He said they were ready to proceed with the case after agreeing to an adjournment on Tuesday.
Miller also argued that the DPP was seeking to reinstate the freeze orders through the back door.
On Friday, Kiambu Senior Principal Magistrate Stella Atambo ruled that the order served on two banks to freeze the accounts was irregular since the Directorate of Criminal Investigations never sought such an order in the first place.
The order issued by the court only allowed the DCI to investigate the accounts.
She ruled that the order to freeze the bank accounts was irregularly obtained and it was proper for the court to correct the error.
Magistrate Atambo ruled that it was improper for the DCI to ride on orders that were never sought.
She said there was a patent mistake and it was proper for the court to correct the error.
The court ruled that section 180(1) of the Evidence Act does not allow freezing of accounts but for access to investigate them only.
