A land reference can appear in an asset-recovery ruling without the court finally deciding title. That is the careful lesson from Assets Recovery Agency v Jane Wambui Wanjiru, Joseph Wanjohi and Sidjoe Manufacturers & Suppliers, a High Court preservation-review ruling.
The case was heard in the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2018. J. N. Onyiego delivered the ruling on 25 April 2019. The source is an EACC Compendium-hosted, Kenya Law-formatted PDF copy. Source PDF (printed p. 1 caption; printed p. 7 dated closing)
What was actually before the court
The Assets Recovery Agency had obtained ex parte preservation orders on 16 November 2018. The respondents then brought an application dated 10 December 2018 seeking review, variation or setting aside of those orders. That posture matters: the court was not trying a criminal charge, finally forfeiting property or determining a land-title dispute. Source PDF (printed p. 1, paras. 1-3)
The preserved-property list was broader than land. It included bank funds, motor vehicles and land. LR 27981/7 is legible, while other LR/IR references appear too indistinct in the retained copy for a clean public parcel inventory or county assignment. Later, the judge referred to the prohibition against sale of land held in the applicants' agents' names. Source PDF (printed p. 1, para. 2; printed p. 7, para. 39)
Allegations were not convictions
The applicants said the preserved assets came from legitimate importation, wholesale and retail business, and that the orders caused hardship by freezing money needed for operations. The Agency's replying material alleged proceeds-of-crime concerns, including wildlife and narcotics-linked investigations. Those competing accounts were part of the preservation-stage record; they were not final findings of guilt. Source PDF (printed pp. 2-4, paras. 4-26)
The court's legal question was the threshold for preservation. It held that section 82 of POCAMLA allows ex parte preservation orders where there are reasonable grounds or prima facie material to suspect the property is connected to proceeds of crime. It also made clear that proof beyond reasonable doubt was not required at that stage. Source PDF (printed pp. 4-6, paras. 27-35)
Why the review failed
The applicants also had to satisfy the court that variation or review was justified under section 89. The judge held that they had not done so. Business hardship did not carry the application because the court was not satisfied that the business had closed, and it noted that the applicants could continue business through new accounts. Source PDF (printed pp. 6-7, paras. 36-42)
The land point remained narrow. The court did not convert the land references into a title judgment. It simply declined to lift the restraint against sale while forfeiture proceedings were said to be ongoing under ACEC No. 7 of 2019. Source PDF (printed p. 7, paras. 39-42)
The actual disposition was dismissal. The court held that the ex parte orders had been regularly and lawfully issued, found no sufficient reason for variation or review, and dismissed the 10 December 2018 application with no orders as to costs. Source PDF (printed p. 7, para. 43 and closing)
The due-diligence lesson
For a buyer, lender or adviser, this ruling is a warning against both exaggerations. It would be wrong to treat a preserved parcel as finally forfeited. It would also be wrong to ignore a preservation order because it was interlocutory.
The practical questions are more specific: which order restrained dealings, which assets were covered, whether the forfeiture case proceeded, whether a later order varied the restraint, and what the current registry and possession evidence now show. None of those later-history questions was checked for this article.
ArdhiScore helps organise dated, source-linked land-risk evidence and unresolved questions for professional follow-up. It does not certify title, prove criminal guilt, confirm current restrictions, guarantee complete litigation history or replace official searches and qualified Kenyan legal advice.