The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) seeking to block former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko from accessing his bank accounts.
The application, filed on January 22, 2026, sought a stay of execution of a High Court ruling delivered on October 1, 2025, by Justice Nixon Sifuna at the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division.
The High Court had dismissed ARA’s suit, which sought to have funds held in various bank accounts belonging to Sonko declared as proceeds of crime and forfeited to the State.
Justice Nixon cited selective investigation, lack of witness statements and unverified property sale documents, noting that the agency failed to meet its burden of proof.
The court further held that the evidence presented by ARA was insufficient to establish that the funds in question were linked to criminal activities. It therefore declined to order the forfeiture of the money, effectively allowing Sonko to retain access to his accounts.
ARA’s appeal to the Court of Appeal sought to halt the execution of the High Court decision pending the hearing and determination of its appeal.
Counsel for ARA argued that under Section 97 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA), any preservation orders or seizure of property in place at the time of the High Court ruling should remain in force until the appeal is concluded.
However, opposing counsel for Sonko, lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, argued that the law does not permit a stay of execution for a “negative decree” — a judgment that dismisses a suit rather than directing any action.
He further argued that under Section 89(1)(b) of POCAMLA, any preservation order automatically ceases once proceedings against a party conclude.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Sonko’s argument, noting that there is no “execution” to stay where a court has merely dismissed a suit.
“As long ago as 1976, in Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v. E. P. Oranga & 3 Others, the Court held that a High Court dismissal does not generate any order for the appellate court to enforce,” the ruling noted.
The court emphasised that a stay of execution is only applicable where a lower court has issued a positive order requiring a party to act or refrain from acting.
It further questioned ARA’s reliance on Section 97 of POCAMLA, asking why the agency would seek a stay if the preservation order automatically continued pending appeal.
“To the extent that the applicant seeks an order of stay of execution against a judgment dismissing its suit, the Court cannot issue such an order,” the three-judge bench ruled.
The court concluded that ARA’s application had no merit and dismissed it with costs to the respondent, Mike Sonko.
