The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Court on Thursday set a 30-day compliance deadline for defendants in the Sh6.1 billion National Youth Service corruption suit.
Presiding over the matter, Hon Velnah Mochache issued the directions after proceedings stalled over missing defence documents and mounting delays.
Mochache expressed frustration that the matter remained unresolved despite prior scheduling directions and criticised the length of time spent debating basic compliance.
“I have instructions to mention a matter only twice, then place before a judge for hearing. This is the second time I'm mentioning it, but none of you have complied," Mochache said.
The civil suit pits the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission against the NYS, Benson Gethi Wangu—trading under multiple entities including Highview Trading and Ratego Technologies—and 14 other defendants.
The commission is seeking to recover public funds, alleging that the respondents submitted fraudulent claims for goods never supplied to the agency.
The disputed vouchers, serialised 000001 to 002901, cover alleged supplies of boots, cooking oil, baked beans, sugar, helmets, T-shirts and fuel between 2013 and 2015.
The EACC contends that procurement records were manipulated, with local purchase orders lacking proper approval and delivery documents falsified to present claims for goods that never reached NYS headquarters or its mechanical and transport branch.
While the EACC alleges that the billions represent fraudulent claims and fictitious contracts for goods and services that were never supplied, the defence and various suppliers maintain that the multi-agency pending bills verification committees previously reviewed and verified the legitimacy of the supplies.
The plaintiff, the EACC, told the court it was in compliance.
“Since September 21, we have not received any statement of defense from any of the defendants. The plaintiff had complied. Perhaps the defendants can give the court the status.”
Counsel also disputed claims that the commission had failed to clarify its document-production notice, telling the court he had filed and served it by email, identifying what was sought from each party.
“It's actually a total of nine documents. The interested party is supposed to produce five documents, the appellant is supposed to produce two documents, while the second defendant is supposed to produce two documents.”
Defence counsel countered that systemic hurdles and voluminous paperwork had made timely compliance exceptionally difficult.
“In this matter, it's not as straightforward because of the documentation. For one to understand the entire brief, which is thousands of pages of study, it's not that easy, your honor, but we note your sentiments and we shall endeavour to arrive to comply.”
Defence counsel also raised issues with service, saying critical documentation requested from the Treasury had yet to be furnished, and sought 30 days to complete the response.
“We had also requested to inspect several documents… We are ready to receive any invitation from them to peruse those documentation, Your Honour. We pray for your further course directions.”
They noted that while individual defences had been lodged, corresponding witness statements were held up pending access to the necessary official records and audit documentation.
In her final directions, Mochache ordered all defendants to complete full compliance within 30 days, allowing a separate 14-day window specifically for outstanding witness statements.
The plaintiff was granted 14 days upon receipt of those materials to file replies. The matter will be mentioned again on December 8.
