Omondi v Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & 4 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that long EACC investigations don't automatically violate your rights, especially when the agency explains the delay.
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 delay in the investigations violated the petitioner's rights and fundamental freedoms
- 2.Whether the trial court erred in granting reliefs that had not been sought
Key legal issues
#Whether EACC investigations constitute administrative action under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act
No - investigative powers under ACECA, including searches, seizures and arrests, are special powers under a specific legal regime and are not administrative action in the strict sense
The Court applied the Supreme Court's decision in EACC v Tom Ojienda & Associates, which held that Part IV ACECA powers carry the privileges of a police officer and cannot be described as administrative action within Article 47. Since the appellant's complaint concerned investigative actions taken under search and seizure warrants, the Article 47 claim could not succeed.
Whether the six-year delay in investigations violated the appellant's rights
No - the EACC sufficiently explained the delay through complexity of unexplained-wealth investigations, multi-county coverage, missing or destroyed land registry records, and the Covid-19 pandemic suspension
The Court re-evaluated the evidence as a first appeal, found the replying affidavit of Evans Rono uncontroverted on the causes of delay, and agreed with the trial court that the nature of the investigations, the documents to be identified and analyzed, the areas covered and intervening circumstances justified the period taken and did not amount to inordinate delay.
Whether the trial court violated stare decisis by departing from Zhang Jing and other precedent
No - delay in investigations is case-specific; Zhang Jing does not bind the Court and Jirongo is distinguishable on its facts
The Court reiterated that investigations differ from case to case, so what amounts to delayed investigations is determined case by case. The respondents distinguished Jirongo on the basis that documents had been lost in that case, and the Court was unable to fault the trial court's finding that the delay did not violate the appellant's rights.
Whether seizure of title deeds, registration of restrictions and the manner of executing search warrants violated rights to dignity, privacy, property and equal protection
No - the search was executed under lawful court orders not recalled or set aside; the rights claimed are limitable under Article 24(1) and public interest in enforcing Chapter Six outweighed them
The appellant admitted the investigators had search warrants and did not show execution at odd hours, harm, or taking of items beyond the warrants. The complaint was raised only in 2024 despite the 2017 search. The limitation was by law, pursuant to court orders, and for the constitutional mandate of enforcing Chapter Six, so public interest prevailed.
Whether the trial court erred in granting unpleaded reliefs (the 8-month directive and remarks on forfeiture)
No - the appellant had invited the court to fashion appropriate relief under Article 23(3), and the trial court merely responded to the complaint about the spouse's property without determining forfeiture
The petition sought 'any other or further relief' and counsel urged the court to fashion appropriate relief, acknowledging the court's power. The trial court's observation that suspected proceeds of crime may be pursued in third-party hands was a response to the appellant's complaint, not a determination of forfeiture proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- Investigative powers of the EACC exercised under ACECA, including searches and arrests, do not constitute 'administrative action' within the meaning of Article 47 of the Constitution
- What amounts to inordinate delay in investigations is determined on a case-by-case basis; complexity, geographic spread and intervening circumstances such as Covid-19 may justify lengthy investigations
- A party claiming violation of rights must demonstrate the violation with specificity, linking the grievance to the constitutional provisions alleged to have been contravened
- Article 40(3) protection against arbitrary deprivation of property is unavailable in respect of property under investigation for unlawful acquisition until lawfulness is determined
- In constitutional petitions, courts may grant appropriate relief under Article 23(3) beyond the strict reliefs pleaded, where the party has invited the court to fashion appropriate relief
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division)
- HCACEPET No. 001 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Constitution and applicable appellate law; the judgment identifies the matter as 'a first appeal, it is by way of a retrial'
Relief refused
#Allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court's judgment with substitution of an order allowing the petition with costs
The Court found no merit in the appeal; the EACC sufficiently explained the delay and no rights violation was proved
Costs
Each party to bear 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.
We are satisfied from the totality of the foregoing that the trial court properly concluded that the appellant's rights had not been violated. We find no merit in this appeal and direct each party to bear own costs.
Strictly speaking, these powers when exercised cannot be described as "administrative action" within the meaning of Article 47.
investigations in one case may not necessarily be similar to another case and therefore what amounts to delayed investigations will be determined on a case by case basis
the search was conducted pursuant to lawful orders issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and they have not been recalled or set aside by that court.
Article 23 (3) of the Constitution gives the court power to grant an appropriate relief which is intended to provide a remedy that effectively addresses a violation of rights, rather than merely adhering to rigid, pre- defined legal solutions.
a party claiming violation of his rights and fundamental freedoms must demonstrate that indeed there was violation, or there is continuing violation or that there is a threat to violate the rights and fundamental freedoms to put the opposite party on notice
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the trial court judgment
Garbled quotation of the Supreme Court's Ojienda decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omondi v Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & 4 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E966 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1738/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.