Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Queen, post: 87866, member: 27"]
ARA's bid to keep Mike Sonko's bank accounts frozen just got swatted down by the Court of Appeal on a basic legal technicality.

High Court backstory
[LIST]
[*]Justice Nixon Sifuna dismissed ARA's forfeiture suit on October 1, 2025.
[*]Sifuna found zero proof that the funds came from criminal activity.
[*]Freeze orders on Sonko's accounts were lifted entirely.
[*]ARA got hit with legal costs from that ruling.
[/LIST]
Why the appeal court said no
[LIST]
[*]A three-judge bench ruled that you cannot pause a dismissal order.
[*]Justices M'inoti, Mwita, and Ongaya sat on the panel.
[*]At least ten prior rulings back up that exact legal position.
[*]M'inoti bluntly asked ARA what exactly they wanted stayed.
[/LIST]
ARA's Section 97 argument backfires
[LIST]
[*]Lawyer Esther Muchiri cited POCAMLA's Section 97 provision.
[*]She argued that filing an appeal automatically preserves freeze orders.
[*]M'inoti pointed out that logic makes the whole application unnecessary.
[*]The bench refused to interpret Section 97 in this context.
[/LIST]
How it wrapped up
[LIST]
[*]ARA withdrew the application rather than face formal dismissal.
[*]Senior Counsel Harrison Kinyanjui represented Sonko throughout.
[*]Kinyanjui asked the court to exclude Section 97 from the record.
[*]A costs ruling drops on March 13, 2026.
[/LIST]
[/QUOTE]

Name