The Court of Appeal has turned down an application to stop the release of Ksh 537 Million held in bank accounts linked to Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko, after ruling that it cannot suspend a High Court Judgement.
A three-judge bench consisting of Justices Kathurima M’inoti, Chacha Mwita, and Bryam Ongaya delivered the ruling, finding that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution against what it termed as a “negative order” that had been issued by the High Court.
The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) had moved to the court of appeal seeking to suspend a decision passed on October 1,2025 by Justice Nixon Sifuna of the High Court. In the judgement Justice Sifuna dismissed the agency’s forfeiture suit and lifted preservation orders that had frozen the money since February 2020.
When the matter was mentioned before the Court of Appeal Justice Minoti questioned the agency’s counsel on the nature of the order they wanted suspended, noting that since the High Court had simply dismissed the suit without issuing any positive directive and as such there was nothing for the Court of Appeal to stay.
Justice Chacha Mwita supported his position further questioning how the court could suspend a decision that had struck out a claim.
ARA’s lawyer, Esther Muchiri however argued that under Section 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act that automatic preservation orders should remain in force upon the filing of an appeal. She maintained that the funds should stay frozen pending the outcome of the substantive appeal.
The bench however declined to entertain arguments on the interpretation of section 97 within the context of an application brought under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Justice M’inoti noted that if the statute was automatically preserved the funds upon appeal then the stay application would be redundant
In response to the court’s firm position, Muchiri opted to withdraw the application. Senior Counsel Harrisson Kinyanjui, representing Sonko, did not object to the withdrawal but asked for costs to be awarded to his client.
The judges reserved their decision on the issue of costs, indicating that a ruling will be delivered on March 13, 2026.
