Former Permanent Secretary Lilian Omollo has moved to the court of appeal to challenge the decision by the High Court to forfeit her Sh 32 million to the government.
Omollo was dissatisfied by the decision by Justice Mumbi Ngugi which found that the above amount held in her bank accounts, those of her children, Sahara Consultants, LIDI holdings limited and LIDI Estates limited were proceeds of crime.
“A declaration is hereby issued that a total of USD 105,293.7 and Sh 22,445,487.74 million held in bank accounts in the name of Lilian Wanja Omollo Mbogo T/A sahara consultants, Lidi Holdings limited, Lidi Estates limited and her three children at Equity bank ,Community bank in Nairobi and Diamond Trust Bank limited, capital centre and village market branches are proceeds of crime and therefore liable for forfeiture to the state,” Judge Ngugi ruled.
The Appellant wants the entire judgement by Justice Ngugi all consequential orders set aside and at the same time vacate all freezing or preservation orders subsisting over all her respective bank accounts subject to her appeal.
In the appeal, Omollo argues that the court erred in law by allowing the forfeiture application without evidence and without legal soundness thereby causing a total failure of justice.
She alleges that the judge ignored evidence on record and decided the matter based on extraneous irrelevant or unproven consideration particularly by predetermining her guilt without any evidence of loss of public funds.
“The judge erred in fact by holding that Asset Recovery Agency had shown that public funds were lost at NYS yet no such proof was adduced by the ARA showing loss of any public funds at NYS whether an investigative report or by other evidence,” says the former PS.
She accuses the judge the judge, she erred in law and misapplied the court’s discretion by failing to consider its own stated position that civil forfeiture applications are not meant to penalize her.
In addition, she finds that the judge erred in fact by funding that she allegedly tacitly conceded in submissions that funds are lost at NYS yet the submissions bear no such concession whether tacit or explicit and and the judge erred by finding the judgement on the said alleged tacit concession that could not in law form basis for any any judgement as it was not unequivocal or unconditional as required by law.
She further claims the judge ignored the proven fact that the auditor general’s report dated 24th April, 2018 confirming that there were no unresolved audit matters or pending audit queries within subject state development of public service and youth for the year ended 30th June, 2017 which report was not challenged by ARA.
Lilian further claim that the judge erred in by reaching to a conflicting decision by holding that her funds were deposited in trenches of Sh 500,000 to 950,000 which finding contradicts the evidence on record and also contradicts the court own rendition within same judgement and the court prejudiced her by failing to order site visit to the Uyoma farm.
“The judge erred by ignoring and failing to consider the appellant pleaded and proved economic viability and income derived from the Uyoma farm and further erred by failing to contempt from the forfeiture order the approximate sum of Sh 390,000 proven as legitimate farm income ” she added.