Ria v Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Civil Appeal E107 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1488 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave the EACC 90 days to finish a 16-year-old investigation or unfreeze accounts, lift title restrictions and return seized documents.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the delayed investigations against the appellant by the respondent were justified
- 2.Depending on the finding on delay, what consequences follow in terms of the orders the court should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the EACC's 16-year delay in completing investigations against the appellant was justified
The delay was unjustified: the preservation orders lapsed on 1 February 2011 without extension, the appellant was never summoned to record a statement, and the respondent's claimed reasons (non-constitution of the Commission, awaiting information from Germany, appellant's non-cooperation) were unsupported by evidence
The court found nothing on record showing the investigators sought the appellant to record statements or undertook separate investigations. The Commission was fully constituted for five years after the 2010 seizure and has always been operational since. The claim of awaiting information from Germany was unsupported by any correspondence. The court concluded the respondent had merely slept on its job, and no justification existed for holding the appellant's seized properties 16 years on.
The consequences of unjustified delay on seized properties, frozen accounts and restrictions on titles
The appeal partially succeeded: the respondent was granted 90 days to complete investigations, failing which the appellant's accounts must be unfrozen, title restrictions lifted, and all seized title deeds and personal documents released
Balancing the appellant's right to property against the public interest in tackling corruption in a public entity (KFS), the court declined to terminate the investigation outright but conditioned continued withholding on completion within 90 days. Continued withholding beyond that period without justifiable explanation was held untenable given the lapse of preservation orders under Section 56 of the ACECA and the absence of any investigative activity.
Whether the lapse of preservation orders under Section 56 of the ACECA renders continued seizure unlawful
The preservation orders granted on 30th July 2010 lapsed on 1st February 2011 with no extension, and the court affirmed Ibrahim, J.'s 2012 ruling that the lapse was sufficient time for the respondent to have concluded investigations
Section 56(3) of the ACECA limits preservation orders to six months, extendable only on application. No extension was sought or granted. The court noted the appellant had repeatedly written to the respondent seeking release of the seized properties from 2012 onwards, yet the respondent withheld them for over a decade without lawful basis.
Whether the EACC's investigative powers are administrative action subject to Article 47 timelines
Following the Supreme Court, the court held that EACC investigative powers are special powers under a specific legal regime, not administrative action under Article 47, and are not subject to statutory completion timelines; however, fair administrative action canons may apply on a case-to-case basis
The court adopted the Supreme Court's decision in Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & another v Ojienda, which held that powers such as house searches and arrests cannot be described as administrative action within Article 47. Nonetheless, the canons of lawfulness, procedural fairness, reasonableness, expedition and efficiency apply in certain aspects depending on the circumstances of each case.
Legal principles established
#- An investigator under Section 23(4) of the ACECA may conduct investigations as a police officer would, including summoning a person under investigation to record a statement
- A person who seeks to halt a criminal investigation on account of delay must show both that the investigating body could have been more expeditious and that the delay prejudiced him or her
- There is no limitation of time to institute and prosecute criminal offences, but where inordinate delay denies a suspect the tools to mount a credible defence, the court may intervene
- There is no justification for continued withholding of a suspect's seized documents, freezing of accounts or embargoing of titles where the investigating body has never summoned the suspect to record a statement and has offered no justifiable explanation for the delay
- EACC investigative powers are special powers under a specific legal regime and are not administrative action within Article 47, and the EACC is not restricted by statutory timelines for completing investigations
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent be and is hereby granted 90 days within which to complete investigations against the appellant, if it so wishes
- 2.Failing compliance, the appellant's frozen bank account shall be forthwith unfrozen
- 3.Failing compliance, the restrictions registered against the titles to his properties or properties related to the subject investigation shall be forthwith lifted
- 4.Failing compliance, all title deeds and personal documents seized from the appellant and held by the respondent shall be forthwith released to him
- 5.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- Constitutional Petition No. E013 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under Rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Outright declaration that the appellant's constitutional rights were violated and immediate return of all seized properties as sought in the petition
The court balanced the appellant's private rights against the public interest in the anti-corruption investigation into Kenya Ferry Services and gave the respondent 90 days to complete its investigations instead
Termination of the investigation against the appellant
The court held it would not be in the public interest to terminate an investigation into a serious economic crime prematurely
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs: 'In view of the nature of this appeal, and the same having partially succeeded, we order that each party do bear their own costs.'
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In view of the nature of this appeal, and the same having partially succeeded, we order that each party do bear their own costs.
The respondent be and is hereby granted 90 days within which to complete investigations against the appellant, if it so wishes.
all title deeds and personal documents seized from the appellant and held by the respondent shall be forthwith released to him.
It has merely slept on its job.
There is entirely no justification by the respondent of holding the appellant's seized properties, 16 years down the line without a justifiable explanation.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the seizure of the appellant's properties: paragraph 30 states documents were collected on 28th July 2010, but paragraph 44 states 'The respondent commenced the investigations by seizure of the appellant's assets on 12th July 2010'
The judgment inconsistently dates the lapse of the preservation orders: paragraph 32 states they 'lapsed on 1st February 2011' while the appellant's submission quoted at paragraph 24 states they 'lapsed on 30th January 2011'
The judgment states the respondent did not appear at the hearing 'despite being duly served' but the narrative that 'The respondent did also file any written submissions' is grammatically defective, leaving unclear whether filings were intended
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ria v Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Civil Appeal E107 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1488 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Constitutional Appeal from Mombasa Constitutional Petition No. E013 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1488/eng@2026-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.