The High Court has frozen over Sh 4.2 million, 212 parcels of land and 17 vehicles belonging to the principal land registrar in Thika land registry.
Justice Esther Maina issued the orders freezing the assets of Felix Mecha Nyakundi after investigations revealed that the assets could have been unlawfully obtained.
The judge prohibited Nyakundi, his agents and servants from selling, transferring, disposing off, wasting, charging or in any other way dealing with the said assets for a period of six months.
“A prohibition order be and is hereby issued prohibiting the respondent, by himself or through his agents or servants from transferring, selling disposing off, wasting, charging or dealing with the properties listed for a period of six months,” ordered justice Maina.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) moved to court seeking to freeze the properties allegedly embezzled from the public.
EACC investigator Charity Muniu told the court that preliminary investigations revealed that Nyakundi has accumulated wealth that is not commensurate with his known legitimate sources of income.
Allegations against the land registrar include embezzlement of public funds, abuse of office, bribery conflict of interest and unexplained wealth.
According to court documents, EACC revealed that pursuant to a search warrant issued by the Magistrates court, the commission undertook search on Nyakundi’s resident, business and office premises which yielded significant number of ownership documents for land, motor vehicles and bank accounts.
The EACC told the court that it intends to analyze the documents seized in conduct of search and is reasonably apprehensive that with the discovery and ongoing investigations, the said properties are at risk of being transferred, sold, charged or otherwise wasted thereby jeopardizing the recovery.
“There is reasonable suspicion that Nyakundi has been involved in corruption or economic crime which has led him to accumulate the above wealth,” officer Muniu told the court.
She added that investigation is likely to take some time and in the absence of a preservation order, there is nothing to prevent the respondent from dealing with the properties in the intervening period to the detriment of the public.
