The High Court has dismissed a petition by lawyer Joseph Kimani Wachira seeking to stop investigations and prosecution over allegations that he solicited and received a bribe on behalf of a judge.
In a judgment delivered on October 7, Justice Joseph Kipkoech Biomdo found that Wachira had failed to demonstrate that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) acted unlawfully or violated his constitutional rights. The court dismissed the petition, lifted interim orders barring his arrest and prosecution, and ordered him to pay the costs of the case.
Wachira moved to court following his arrest on March 9, during an EACC operation at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen, Nairobi.
Background of the case
The case arose from allegations that Wachira, Okiri Thomas Awili and the late former High Court judge Joseph Mutava solicited Sh10 million from businessman Raphael Tuju to secure a favourable ruling in a commercial dispute involving Dari Limited and Garam Investment Auctioneers.
According to the EACC, the money was allegedly intended to influence a sitting High Court judge handling Milimani Commercial Case No. HCCOMM/E636/2024, involving Dari Limited and Tuju against Garam Investment Auctioneers and others.
The commission told the court that investigations began after receiving a complaint from Tuju. Investigators facilitated the recording of conversations using an audio-visual device and provided treated money before accompanying the complainant to the meeting.
The EACC said Sh1 million in treated currency was recovered during the operation after investigators received a signal from Tuju.
Wachira denied soliciting or receiving a bribe, arguing that Tuju produced the money without any prior demand or discussion. He maintained that the operation was a pre-arranged entrapment scheme intended to implicate him.
He also relied on a statutory declaration by Awili, who allegedly described the operation as a set-up orchestrated by Tuju for personal gain.
However, the court rejected the entrapment argument, finding insufficient evidence that the EACC had induced the commission of an offence or arranged the meeting to manufacture a crime.
Court's findings on entrapment
The judge held that the commission’s role was limited to facilitating evidence collection and that the material presented did not establish that investigators had set up the meeting or influenced the discussions.
The court further ruled that the EACC acted within its constitutional and statutory mandate to investigate corruption and bribery allegations after receiving a formal complaint.
“The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the EACC's probe has crossed the high threshold of malice, clear lack of factual foundation, illegality, or ultra vires action to warrant judicial interference,” the court held.
Wachira had also accused the respondents of unlawfully leaking recordings of his arrest and investigation to the public, arguing that the disclosures damaged his reputation and threatened the fairness of future criminal proceedings. He claimed violations of his constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, equality, fair administrative action and a fair hearing.
Wachira's claims of rights violations
The court found that determining whether allegedly unlawfully obtained evidence should be excluded from a trial was premature because formal charges had not been preferred against him at the time of judgment. It also found that the examination of his mobile phones was supported by a court warrant.
The judge concluded that Wachira had failed to establish a constitutional violation warranting judicial intervention. The petition was dismissed in its entirety, all interim orders were vacated, and Wachira was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
