The has dismissed an application by the (ARA) seeking to halt the release of Sh537 million linked to former Nairobi Governor .
In a ruling delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices , and , the appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution against what it described as a “negative order” issued by the High Court.
The judges noted that the High Court judgment delivered on October 1, 2025 merely dismissed a forfeiture suit filed by ARA and did not compel any party to act or refrain from acting. As such, it could not be subjected to a stay under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
“A dismissal of a suit does not amount to a decree capable of execution, save for costs,” the bench stated, emphasizing that courts cannot stay orders that do not impose enforceable obligations.
ARA had sought to suspend the decision of High Court Judge , who dismissed the agency’s forfeiture case with costs and lifted preservation orders that had frozen the funds since February 2020. In that ruling, the High Court found that ARA had failed to prove that the money constituted proceeds of crime, citing gaps in investigations, lack of key witness statements, and reliance on unverified documents.
During the hearing, Justice M’inoti questioned ARA’s legal team on the nature of the orders they intended to suspend, pointing out that the lower court had only dismissed the suit. Justice Mwita similarly raised concerns over the legal basis of staying a judgment that simply struck out a claim.
ARA’s counsel, , argued that Section 97 of the (POCAMLA) provides for the continuation of preservation orders once an appeal is filed, maintaining that the funds should remain frozen pending appeal.
However, the bench declined to interpret the provision within the framework of the application before it, with Justice M’inoti observing that if preservation were automatic, the application for stay would have been unnecessary.
Faced with the court’s position, Muchiri opted to withdraw the application. The move was not opposed by Senior Counsel , who represented Sonko, although he sought costs.
The Court of Appeal subsequently marked the application as withdrawn and found that the Notice of Motion dated January 22, 2026 lacked merit, effectively paving the way for the release of the Sh537 million.
The ruling marks a significant development in the long-running legal battle over the funds and reinforces established legal principles governing stay of execution in appellate proceedings.
