Court orders Waititu to surrender Sh76m

Former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu on Friday suffered a huge blow after the High Court ordered the forfeiture of his assets worth Sh76.2 million to the state after finding that they were unexplained wealth.

A parcel of land worth Sh3 million that is owned by his wife, Susan Wangari, will also be forfeited to the government.

In a judgment delivered on Friday, Justice Nixon Sifuna partly allowed a civil suit filed by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, which had sought to recover assets allegedly acquired through unlawful means during Waititu’s time in public office.

Cup pressure peaks as Shabana host Kenya Police in blockbuster quarter-final Football

Upper Hill coach Walgwe unperturbed despite drawing giants in Prescott Cup group phase Rugby

The judge held that EACC had established a prima facie case showing that several assets owned by Waititu were not supported by satisfactory explanations as to how they were acquired.

These included land and movable properties whose total value the commission placed at Sh76.2 million.

“They having been found unexplained wealth and it is hereby ordered they be forfeited to the Kenyan government,” Justice Sifuna ruled.

However, the court declined to grant EACC’s request to forfeit funds held in various bank accounts linked to Waititu, his wife and companies associated with them.

The judge ruled that the commission’s claims relating to the bank accounts were neither clearly pleaded nor adequately supported by evidence.

“I have not found anything on record to fault the bank accounts,” Justice Sifuna said, adding that while a prima facie case had been established in respect of certain assets, the same threshold had not been met regarding the funds.

In detailing the scope of the forfeiture orders, the court clarified that all land and movable properties belonging to Waititu and his wife were spared, except for five specific assets whose acquisition the court found to be unexplained.

These include a Caterpillar machine valued at Sh11 million, three motor vehicles comprising a Toyota Probox valued at Sh600,000, a Toyota Vitz valued at Sh600,000 and two parcels of land in Thindigua valued at Sh32 million each.

The court also ordered the forfeiture of a separate parcel of land belonging toWangari, located in the Kajiado–Kitengela area and valued at Sh3 million. Sifuna ruled that the explanation offered regarding the acquisition of the property was not satisfactory.

In addition, the judge ordered the forfeiture of a further parcel of land belonging to a third defendant in the case, after finding that it too constituted unexplained wealth.

However, the court reached a different conclusion with respect to two trading firms linked to the respondents.

Justice Sifuna found that the manner in which the firms acquired their assets had been satisfactorily explained and supported by evidence on record. As a result, the commission’s bid to recover assets linked to the two companies was rejected.

The judge said the values relied upon by the court in making its determination were supplied by the anti-graft agency itself through the originating summons and supporting affidavits.

Waititu and his wife had opposed the suit, maintaining that all the contested properties were lawfully acquired and that the commission had failed to prove its case.

They argued that EACC’s claims were speculative and did not meet the legal threshold required in civil forfeiture proceedings. EACC, however, maintained that investigations had revealed that Waititu accumulated wealth that was grossly disproportionate to his known and legitimate income.

The commission alleged that during his tenure as Kabete MP between 2015 and 2017 and later as Kiambu governor between 2017 and 2020, Waititu abused his positions of trust for private gain.

The commission filed the civil forfeiture suit three years ago, alleging that he amassed assets worth about Sh1.94 billion through transactions that were in conflict with the public interest.

EACC sought orders declaring the properties as proceeds of unexplained wealth and liable for recovery by the state.

In the end, the court declined to grant the bulk of the Sh1.9 billion recovery sought by the commission, allowing forfeiture only in respect of the specific properties found to be unexplained.