The Court of Appeal has declined an application by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) seeking to suspend a High Court ruling that rejected the forfeiture of funds associated with former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko.
In a decision delivered on March 25, 2026, a bench comprising Justices K. Minoti, E.C. Mwita and B. Ongaya ruled that the request for stay of execution was untenable, holding that the impugned High Court decision did not amount to an enforceable order.
The dispute stems from a judgment issued on October 1, 2025, in which the High Court dismissed ARA’s case seeking to have certain funds in Sonko’s accounts declared proceeds of crime and forfeited to the government. The court found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish a link between the funds and any criminal activity.
Following that outcome, ARA filed an application before the appellate court seeking to preserve the status quo pending the determination of its appeal. The agency relied on provisions of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), arguing that preservation measures should remain in force during the appeal process.
However, the application was opposed by Sonko’s legal team, which argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay in respect of a judgment that merely dismissed a suit. They maintained that such a decision does not impose any obligation capable of execution.
The Court of Appeal agreed, reiterating the established legal principle that a “negative order”, one that does not compel action or restraint, cannot be stayed.
“There is nothing to stay,” the judges observed, noting that the High Court decision did not direct any party to undertake or refrain from any act.
The bench also questioned the necessity of the application, pointing out that if the law already ensured the continuation of preservation orders as claimed by ARA, then seeking a stay would be redundant.
Relying on established jurisprudence, the court reaffirmed that stay orders are only available where there is a positive, enforceable decree.
The application was ultimately dismissed, with costs awarded to Sonko.
