Kenyan Court Of Appeal Dismisses Assets Recovery Agency Application To Maintain Freeze On Mike Sonko Millions

The Court of Appeal dismisses the ARA’s bid to freeze Mike Sonko’s KSh 537 million, ruling that a dismissed suit cannot be stayed by the court.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 25, 2026, 10:04 AM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from TUKO.co.ke

Appellate Victory For Former Governor In Asset Forfeiture Dispute

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko has secured a definitive legal victory following a ruling by the Kenyan Court of Appeal which dismissed an application by the Assets Recovery Agency. The agency had sought to maintain a freeze on over KSh 537 million linked to the politician pending an appeal. However, a three judge bench consisting of Justices K. M’Inoti, E. C. Mwita, and B. Ongaya found that the state’s legal strategy was fundamentally incompatible with established judicial principles regarding the suspension of court orders.

Judicial Clarification On The Nature Of Negative Orders

The core of the appellate court’s decision rested on the technical distinction between positive and negative judicial orders. The judges emphasized that a judgment which merely dismisses a suit does not impose any enforceable obligations that can be stayed. According to the bench, the court cannot issue an order of stay of execution where the trial court has simply terminated the proceedings without directing a specific action. This ruling affirms the argument presented by Sonko’s legal team that a dismissed suit effectively rescinds any prior preservation orders.

Evaluating The Evidentiary Threshold For Proceeds Of Crime

This latest development follows a High Court judgment from October 1, 2025, which initially cleared the funds. During those proceedings, the court found that the Assets Recovery Agency had failed to provide sufficient proof that the millions held in Sonko’s bank accounts were derived from criminal activity. According to the appellate judges, the agency’s continued insistence that the funds were illicit remained unsupported by the evidence submitted, leading to the conclusion that the preservation of the status quo was no longer legally justifiable.