The High Court has dismissed a petition by lawyer Joseph Kimani Wachira seeking to stop investigations and prosecution over allegations that he solicited and received a Sh10 million bribe on behalf of a judge.
In its judgment, the court ruled that Wachira had failed to demonstrate that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) acted unlawfully or violated his constitutional rights while investigating the allegations.
The court consequently lifted interim orders that had barred his arrest and prosecution and directed him to pay the costs of the case.
Wachira was arrested on March 9, 2026, during an EACC operation at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen.
The arrest followed allegations that he, Okiri Thomas Awili and the late former High Court judge Joseph Mutava solicited Sh10 million from businessman Raphael Tuju to secure a favourable ruling in a commercial dispute.
According to the EACC, the alleged bribe was intended for a sitting High Court judge handling a dispute involving Dari Limited and Tuju against Garam Investment Auctioneers and others in Milimani Commercial Case No. E636 of 2024.
The commission told the court that it launched investigations after receiving a complaint from Tuju.
Investigators allegedly facilitated the recording of conversations using an audio-visual device and provided treated money before accompanying the complainant to the meeting.
The suspects were arrested after investigators received a signal from Tuju, with the EACC reporting that Sh1 million in treated currency was recovered during the operation.
Wachira denied soliciting or receiving a bribe, arguing that Tuju produced the money without any prior demand or discussion.
He maintained that the arrest resulted from a pre-arranged entrapment scheme intended to implicate him.
He also relied on a statutory declaration by Awili, who allegedly described the operation as a set-up orchestrated by Tuju for personal gain.
However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish that the EACC had induced the commission of an offence or arranged the meeting to manufacture a crime.
The judge held that the commission’s role was limited to facilitating the collection of evidence, adding that there was no sufficient evidence that investigators had organised the meeting or influenced the discussions.
“The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the EACC’s probe has crossed the high threshold of malice, clear lack of factual foundation, illegality, or ultra vires action to warrant judicial interference,” the court held.
The judge further declined to resolve conflicting accounts contained in Awili’s statutory declaration, noting that the disputed facts would require proper evaluation during trial.
Wachira had also accused the respondents of unlawfully leaking recordings of his arrest and investigations to the public, arguing that the disclosures damaged his reputation and threatened the fairness of future criminal proceedings.
He claimed that his constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, equality, fair administrative action and a fair hearing had been violated.
However, the court found that it was premature to determine whether allegedly illegally obtained evidence should be excluded from a trial because formal charges had not been preferred against him at the time of the judgment.
The judge observed that Article 50(4) of the Constitution does not automatically exclude all evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. Such evidence may be excluded where its admission would render a trial unfair or otherwise harm the administration of justice.
On the seizure and examination of Wachira’s mobile phones, the court found that the extraction of evidence was supported by a court warrant authorising the investigation of his devices.
The court also reaffirmed that the EACC has a constitutional and statutory mandate to investigate corruption, bribery and economic crimes after receiving a formal complaint.
It held that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with investigations unless there is clear evidence of malice, illegality, abuse of power or a lack of factual basis.
The dismissal of the petition clears the way for investigations to proceed, with the interim orders lifted.
However, the ruling does not amount to a determination of Wachira’s criminal guilt.
