Kiambu Governor Kimani Wamatangi/HANDOUTKiambu






Kiambu Governor Paul Kimani Wamatangi has failed in his bid to exit a Sh813.1 million asset recovery suit filed against him by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).

 High Court Judge Rose Ougo dismissed applications by Wamatangi and several other defendants seeking to have them struck out of the case, allowing the commission’s suit to proceed.

In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the judge rejected Wamatangi’s argument that the EACC case should not proceed because a related constitutional petition was already before the court and had issued conservatory orders.

Justice Ougo found that Wamatangi had not demonstrated that the parties and issues in the constitutional petition were the same as those in the EACC case.

 “The first defendant (Wamatangi) has merely told the court that the suit hearing was sub judice to the constitutional petition. He has, however, failed to inform this court, nor has he provided any documentation to show that the parties in this case are similar to those in this case and that the issues raised therein are the same as those in the present suit,” the judge observed.

EACC had argued that the conservatory orders in the constitutional petition only prevented the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from charging Wamatangi and did not affect its civil claim seeking recovery and forfeiture of alleged proceeds of graft.

Wamatangi also argued that the suit was barred by parliamentary privilege, contending that the allegations related to his conduct while he was chairperson of the Senate Standing Committee on Roads, Transportation and Housing.

 The judge, however, held that parliamentary privilege does not shield members from allegations of unlawful conduct.

 “A reading of these provisions indicates that protection against prosecution in the discharge of their lawful functions. However, the same provisions, in my view, do not intend to shield any member from an alleged, unlawful act,” Justice Ougo said.

She further found that the allegations against Wamatangi, as pleaded by EACC, did not concern protected parliamentary proceedings.

“Clearly, these allegations against him are not privileged and therefore do not warrant protection as they do not and cannot impede the functions in question,” she ruled.

 Wamatangi and the other applicants had also argued that EACC had not established a cause of action against them personally, particularly because some of the companies sued alongside them were separate legal entities.

The judge declined to strike out Wamatangi and other defendants at this stage, noting that the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and falsification of documents would have to be tested through evidence at trial.

 “In the face of the pleadings, there are also allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and falsification of documents which resulted in the 2nd to 6th defendants (several companies) being awarded tenders. These allegations must be substantiated by evidence and tested at a hearing,” she said.

EACC filed the suit last year, seeking to recover Sh813,145,532.40 from Wamatangi and 13 other parties.

 The Commission alleges the money was received through road construction contracts awarded by the Kenya National Highways Authority, Kenya Urban Roads Authority and Kenya Rural Roads Authority between the 2018/2019 and 2021/2022 financial years.

The defendants include several companies and individuals whom EACC alleges were involved in the transactions.

The commission claims the county boss improperly influenced the award of tenders to companies associated with him and remained a signatory to their bank accounts.

These are allegations that will be determined at trial.

EACC’s counsel also asked the court to proceed with its application for injunctions and extend interim orders freezing the defendants’ bank accounts and assets.

Justice Ougo directed that the injunction application be heard on November 12, 2026, and extended the interim orders pending that hearing.

Defence lawyers were granted leave to appeal the decision and urged the court to fast-track the case, arguing that the frozen funds were being needed to run the companies.