The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has filed an objection to a Petition of Appeal by Huelands Limited and Afrison Export Import Limited, challenging the July 3, 2026 decision of the Court of Appeal over disputed land parcel LR No. 7879/4 in Ruaraka.

The parcel partly hosts Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.

In the objection filed on August 4, EACC, listed as the seventh respondent in Supreme Court Petition No. E025 of 2026, argues that the two companies have failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to invoke the apex court’s jurisdiction.

The Commission wants the petition struck out, accusing the companies of attempting to introduce new constitutional questions while asking the Supreme Court to revisit factual findings that have already been settled by the lower courts.

“The Petition of Appeal is misconceived, frivolous, and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court, as it fails to satisfy the threshold for invoking this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution,” EACC advocate Jackie Kibogy states.

At the heart of the dispute is about 13.5 acres occupied by the two public schools and whether the land was private property subject to compulsory acquisition and compensation or had already become public land after being surrendered to the Government.

Court records show Afrison Export Import Limited and Huelands Limited acquired the larger 96-acre parcel from Joreth Limited in 1981.

The companies were closely associated with the late businessman Francis Mburu, who featured prominently in compensation claims and subsequent court proceedings over the property.

The dispute intensified after the National Land Commission moved to compulsorily acquire about 13.77 acres occupied by Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.

The NLC valued the portion at Sh3.269 billion and subsequently paid Sh1.5 billion to the two companies, leaving a balance of about Sh1.769 billion.

The payment triggered public controversy, parliamentary scrutiny and a series of legal proceedings over whether public funds had been lawfully used to compensate the companies for land already belonging to the State.

EACC challenged the legality of the payment, arguing that the portion occupied by the schools had already been surrendered to the Government as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.

The issue eventually found its way through the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal.

The latest chapter began with a 2018 reference before the Environment and Land Court filed by then-NLC chairperson Prof Muhammad Swazuri.

The reference sought, among other issues, to establish whether the process through which the land occupied by the schools was acquired complied with the Constitution and whether public money had been lost.

The Environment and Land Court subsequently determined issues surrounding the disputed land, prompting Huelands and Afrison to move to the Court of Appeal.

On July 3, 2026, the appellate court ruled against the two companies, holding that approximately 13.5 acres occupied by the schools was public land and that the compulsory acquisition and Sh1.5 billion compensation were unlawful.

EACC subsequently announced that it would pursue recovery of the Sh1.5 billion.

The companies have now moved to the Supreme Court through Petition of Appeal No. E025 of 2026, challenging the Court of Appeal decision.

EACC’s objection is built around nine grounds, principally arguing that the appeal does not raise a proper constitutional question capable of triggering the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a).

The Commission accuses the appellants of seeking to introduce constitutional issues that were neither pleaded nor canvassed before the lower courts.

According to EACC, the companies are relying on constitutional provisions that were not considered or determined by the Environment and Land Court or the Court of Appeal.

The watchdog argues that the Supreme Court cannot be used as a forum to introduce fresh constitutional questions that were never litigated before the courts below.

EACC also objects to the companies’ challenge to the finding that the 13.5 acres were surrendered as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.

The Commission says both the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal made concurrent findings on the issue.

It argues that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating evidence merely because an appellant is dissatisfied with findings made by the lower courts.

“Having made concurrent findings of fact on that issue, the Petition of Appeal seeks to invite this Honourable Court to re-evaluate the evidence and interfere with those findings, contrary to its appellate jurisdiction,” EACC states.

The Commission therefore wants the Supreme Court to reject what it considers an attempt to turn a factual dispute into a constitutional appeal.

Another central issue in the objection is the legal distinction between surrender of land and compulsory acquisition.

The companies have challenged the consequences of the lower courts’ finding that part of the property had been surrendered, apparently maintaining that the taking of the land amounted to compulsory acquisition for which compensation was payable.

EACC rejects that argument, maintaining that surrender and compulsory acquisition have different legal consequences.

“Surrender and compulsory acquisition are distinct legal concepts recognized under the Constitution and the law,” the Commission states.

It relies on Article 62(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides that public land includes land that has been surrendered to the State by virtue of a condition imposed by a law or instrument.

EACC’s position is that the legal character of the 13.5 acres cannot be changed from surrendered land to compulsorily acquired private property simply because the companies disagree with the lower courts’ findings.

The Commission maintains that the issue was fully considered and determined by the courts below and cannot now be reopened through a fresh constitutional argument before the Supreme Court.

The Ruaraka dispute has attracted considerable public interest because of the billions of shillings involved and the fact that the contested property hosts public schools.

The controversy has also placed the conduct of public institutions under scrutiny, particularly the National Land Commission and its handling of compensation claims.

The legal battle has consequently drawn in several government agencies and individuals.

Besides EACC, the Supreme Court petition lists the National Land Commission, Nairobi City County Government, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Patrick Thoithi Kanyuira among the respondents.

EACC is asking the Supreme Court to strike out the Petition of Appeal in its entirety.

Alternatively, the Commission wants the court to dismiss the appeal with costs, arguing that it is otherwise devoid of merit and does not disclose a genuine constitutional question warranting the intervention of the apex court.

At the centre of the objection is the constitutional limit on the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

EACC’s case is that the apex court is not another forum for parties to reopen factual disputes or introduce constitutional questions that were never litigated and determined by the courts below.

The companies, however, have moved to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, setting the stage for another legal battle over the disputed Ruaraka property.

The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is therefore whether Huelands and Afrison have satisfied the constitutional threshold for the court to hear their appeal.

If EACC succeeds, the petition will be struck out without the Supreme Court determining the substantive issues raised by the two companies.

The post EACC moves to block fresh Supreme Court appeal over Ruaraka schools land appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a judgment delivered on Friday, a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Martha Koome dismissed appeals by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA), upholding a Court of Appeal decision in Aboo’s favour, whose three Equity Bank accounts holding a total of Sh19,688,152.35 had been targeted for forfeiture by the State.

Aboo, who is the spouse of a former Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) employee, had contested the attempted forfeiture of the funds, which investigators alleged were proceeds of crime.

The Supreme Court affirmed that investigators must establish a clear link between suspected criminal activity and any property targeted for forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).

At the centre of the dispute were three Equity Bank accounts at the Donholm branch containing a combined Sh19,688,152.35.

The ARA moved to recover the funds after receiving information in March 2017 that the money was suspected to be proceeds of crime.

The agency linked the funds to Aboo’s husband, Alex Mukhwana Khisa, then a KRA officer who had been investigated over allegations that he solicited bribes from clearing and forwarding agents.

However, the EACC’s parallel investigations into Khisa were later closed, while preservation orders obtained against him were vacated in January 2018.

In response to inquiries on the source of the funds, Aboo said the money came from her businesses dealing in agricultural produce, transport, perfumes and cereals. She also provided investigators with the identities of her business associates

The Supreme Court found that the agencies failed to sufficiently investigate or challenge her explanation.

“Instead of discounting the respondent’s explanation by investigating these sources, all the 2nd appellant stated in rebuttal was that the respondent had not produced any receipts to back up her claim,” CJ Koome led bench said

The bench held that an element of crime must form the basis of any forfeiture proceedings.

“A reading of the foregoing provisions leaves no doubt that an order for forfeiture under POCAMLA can only be made against property which, in one way or another, is associated with the commission of a crime, or is a proceed of crime. The incidence of crime remains central to such forfeiture proceedings,” the court held.

“It is therefore a requirement that the ARA has to establish a nexus between the subject matter of forfeiture and a crime or its intended commission when seeking an order of forfeiture.”

The judges noted that the agencies’ suspicions were largely based on the existence of substantial amounts of money in Aboo’s accounts and allegations previously made against her husband.

They questioned the evidence linking the funds to criminal activity.

“What is there on record to show that the monies in question were obtained by Aboo as a result of an offence or criminal activity?” the judges asked.

They added: “Where is the evidence on record to support such an allegation by the very institution that closed further investigations into the accusations of bribery against the respondent’s husband? Where is the incidence of crime in the entire chain of events that triggered the forfeiture proceedings?”

The Supreme Court further held that where an agency alleges that property constitutes proceeds of crime generated by a third party, that person should be joined in the proceedings.

“We are of the considered view that the requirement for a nexus between the impugned property and the alleged criminal conduct under the forfeiture scheme in POCAMLA makes it critical that the person alleged to have generated the proceeds of crime, in this case, the respondent’s husband, ought to be joined to the proceedings,” the court stated.

The ruling is expected to shape future civil asset recovery proceedings by clarifying that although forfeiture cases are civil in nature, investigators must still demonstrate a connection between property and criminal activity before assets can be seized by the State.

The post Supreme Court Rejects EACC, ARA Bid to Forfeit Pamela Aboo’s Sh19.6 Million appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Photos posted on CJ X account show legal heavyweights Philip Murgor SC, Nelson Havi, and Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo, who many says may have brokered the historic truce between Koome and Ahmednasir.

This wasn’t just another routine meeting. This was the first face-to-face encounter between the CJ and Ahmednasir since the Supreme Court’s controversial ban two years ago, a ban that had sent shockwaves through the legal profession and sparked fierce debates about judicial overreach and freedom of practice.

 “Chief Justice Martha Koome convened a consultative meeting with senior lawyers, including Philip Murgor, Ahmednassir Abdullahi, Nelson Havi, and LSK President Faith Odhiambo, to discuss access to justice,” the message posted on CJ account states.

“The engagement focused on collaboration, tackling corruption, and removing barriers to strengthen efficiency, integrity, and public confidence in the justice system.”

On January 23, 2024, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of barring Ahmednasir, along with his partners and associates, from appearing before it.

The decision was met with disbelief and outrage in legal circles. How could Kenya’s apex court ban an entire law firm without what many considered justifiable cause?

For two years, the firebrand lawyer Ahmednasir continued his crusade from the sidelines, launching blistering attacks on what he termed “JurisPESA”,his provocative label for alleged corruption in the judiciary.

His social media posts became legendary, mixing legal analysis with scorching criticism that made judges squirm and the public pay attention.

When the Supreme Court finally lifted the ban, thanks to intervention by Paul Muite SC, Fred Ngatia SC, and Dennis Mosota, many expected Ahmednasir to declare victory and return triumphantly to practice.

Instead, he threw down a gauntlet that left even his supporters stunned.

“I have decided NOT TO PRACTICE before the court,” he declared, outlining three non-negotiable demands: an admission of wrongdoing by the Court, addressing his grievances about judicial integrity, and meaningful institutional reforms.

His reasoning? “If I go back to practice before the Supreme Court, who is left to fight against JurisPESA in our courts?”

It was vintage Ahmednasir, defiant, principled, and unwilling to be appeased by what he called “a ploy.”

But then came the CJ’s move. The consultative meeting wasn’t just about mending fences, it was about confronting the elephants in the room: corruption allegations, barriers to justice, and the erosion of public confidence in the courts.

The agenda was ambitious: strengthening collaboration between the LSK and the Judiciary, addressing systemic barriers to justice delivery, and exploring solutions to enhance efficiency, integrity, and the rule of law.

By inviting Ahmednasir to the table alongside other critics like laywer Havi, CJ Koome sent a powerful message: dissent would be heard, not silenced.

The meeting concluded with both sides acknowledging the need for dialogue, though the road ahead remains uncertain.

Ahmednasir’s closing challenge to the CJ, offering his experience as former LSK Chairman and JSC member to help reform the courts, hangs in the air like an unanswered question.

Can the Judiciary reform itself from within? Will the Supreme Court acknowledge its mistakes? And most intriguingly, will Ahmednasir eventually return to practice before the very court he’s sworn to reform?

For now, Kenya’s legal community watches with bated breath as two formidable forces, one wielding the gavel, the other wielding the pen, navigate from feud to what might become the most consequential collaboration in the Judiciary’s fight against corruption.

The war against “JurisPESA” has found an unlikely battlefield: the negotiating table.

The post From Feud to Dialogue: CJ Koome, Havi and Ahmednasir’s Historic Reunion After Two Years appeared first on Insider Bits News.