Ndiang’ui cries foul over detention of his items

Blogger Ndiangui Kinyagia at Milimani Law Courts. [PHOTO: EZEKIEL AMING'A]

Technology entrepreneur Ndiang’ui Kinyagia has told the High Court that the continued detention of his personal documents and professional tools has crippled his business.

He said that the seizure by the authorities has also cut him off from possible travel outside the country.

Appearing before Justice Lawrence Mugambi on Tuesday, Ndiang’ui, through his lawyer, argued that the state has failed to explain why the key items have not been released to him.

He said this has left him unable to transact or travel for engagements beyond Kenyan borders.

"It's our humble plea for saving judicial time, you grant us orders because items ceased are our clients' tools of trade," he told the court.

"No explanation has been given on why they have been seized and continued detention of the items, including passports and an International vaccination card, means he can't travel outside the country for whichever business."

In his application, Ndiang’ui pleaded for the court to grant orders for the immediate release of the seized items, saying their detention amounts to an infringement of his fundamental rights.

The court heard that a similar plea had previously been made orally in a habeas corpus petition.

In the separate matter that challenged his alleged disappearance before his reappearance, the petition was initially used to seek protection from unlawful detention.

Justice Mugambi was told that the issue of his seized items has remained unresolved, forcing Ndiang’ui to bring it back formally under an application in the current suit.

The matter resurfaced as a formal request, with Ndiang’ui’s legal team urging the court to act to “save judicial time” and protect his rights.

However, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), represented by state counsel Rukiya Ibrahim, however, opposed the request.

She said it was too early to issue such orders since this was only a mention date, not a hearing, and the respondents should be given time to file a replying affidavit to the application.

Justice Mugambi concurred with the ODPP and declined to issue the release orders immediately, ruling that it would amount to an ambush.

He noted that fairness required the respondents to be given a chance to respond substantively.

“It would be an ambush to grant such orders at this stage. The respondents should file their replying affidavit before the court can consider the matter,” the judge said.

He directed the ODPP to file their responses within seven days and fixed the matter for mention on November 10, 2025, when a hearing date will be set.