When MP moved to court to attach challenger's Sh8m assets

Bomachoge Chache MP Alfa Miruka celebrates with supporters after his poll win was upheld. February 2, 2017. [Sammy Omingo, Standard]

In 2020, Kisii politician Jeremiah Matoke was on the verge of losing property worth Sh8 million over unpaid petition costs.

The court had ordered him to pay Bomachoge Chache MP Alfa Miruka, whose election victory he had challenged. Miruka had obtained orders to attach some properties.

Florence Nyagwara and Sunrise Produce Kenya Limited later moved to court as objectors, by their application filed on December 18, 2019, premised on Order 22 Rule 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

“When I began the proclamation process, the petitioner began transferring his assets with the aid of the first and second objectors to defeat the ends of justice,” the MP said in his replying affidavit.

Kisii High Court judge Anthony Ndungu, in his ruling, said it does appear that the transfer of the vehicle from the petitioner to the second objector, where he was a director and shareholder, was calculated to frustrate execution of the decree of the court which had been issued on April 3, 2019.

The judge ruled thus: “The upshot of all the foregoing is that the application dated December 18, 2019, is found lacking in merit.”

In her affidavit, Nyagwara had argued that she was not party to the suit and stands to suffer loss if the attachment against her is not raised.

She further averred that the proclaimed motor vehicles registration numbers KCC 076G and KCE 951U belonged to the second objector (Sunrise Produce Kenya Limited).

However, Miruka told the court that Nyagwara lived with the petitioner in the same premises and that they were directors and shareholders of Sunrise Produce Kenya Limited.

“The previous owner of the proclaimed motor vehicles is the petitioner. When the petitioner lost the petition and the appeal he filed before the Court of Appeal, he started transferring assets from the jurisdiction of the court by conniving with the first objector and the second objector,” noted Miruka.

In his ruling dated August 3, 2020, the judge held that the first objector was required to provide evidence of ownership of the proclaimed goods to discharge her burden of proof.

“Her objection to their proclamation is therefore dismissed.”