- The Judges said Kiambaa, his wife Tracy Mbinya Musau and their companies Jimbise Limited and Muthaiga Green Acres Limited are not entitled to any compensation as had been sought for the alleged violation of their rights to privacy and fair hearing.
- They had asked for Sh10 million compensation from the Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission and the Kenya Revenue Authority.
Image: FILE
The Court of Appeal has denied claims by former Nairobi county chief finance officer Jimmy Kiambaa that his rights were violated by the anti-graft agency in the process of investigating unexplained assets amounting to Sh1 billion.
In dismissing his appeal, Court of Appeal Judges Imaana Laibuta, Abida Ali Aroni and John Mativo said Kiambaa, his wife Tracy Mbinya Musau and their companies Jimbise Limited and Muthaiga Green Acres Limited are not entitled to any compensation as had been sought for the alleged violation of their rights to privacy and fair hearing.
They had asked for Sh10 million compensation from the Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission and the Kenya Revenue Authority.
The case started when the EACC received an intelligence report on Kiambaa.
Investigations were carried out establishing that, during the period of interest, Kiambaa and his wife held and transacted amounts totalling Sh1,057,915,456.
EACC issued notices to them to explain the suspect assets, however, the answers received were unsatisfactory, necessitating the filing of an application in court seeking preservation orders to allow it to investigate the matter further.
The High Court subsequently issued preservation orders for six months and, after the lapse of the six months, the court declined to extend the orders.
The Kiambaa’s also filed a petition in court citing violation and infringement of their rights.
They claimed the probe by the EACC was carried out using a section that had been repealed.
They also complained that the figures arrived at had massive errors that led to an erroneous conclusion that they were receiving in their bank accounts huge sums of monies beyond their known sources of income.
Kiambaa also claimed that the action of the Kenya Revenue Authority of sharing his declaration of income assets and liabilities forms with EACC violated his right to privacy and right to fair administrative action.
It's based on this that they sought a raft of declarations among them an order for compensation for the violation of their rights.
EACC denied violating their rights. It said the law empowers it to investigate its own motion, or on receiving a complaint from a third party.
Justice Hedwig Ongundi who heard the matter found that the EACC and KRA did not violate the petitioners' rights in the process of investigations.
She also said their right to fair hearing was not violated. Dissatisfied, the Kiambaa’s moved to the Court of Appeal.
But the appellate judges said they found nothing wrong with Ong’undi’s finding affirming that the EACC did not act casually when it issued the notices.
"The EACC was not satisfied with the explanation given and moved to the court initially for preservation orders and later filed a suit for forfeiture and recovery of the unexplained assets. We find that the EACC's action was within the confines of the law," said the appellate Judges.