|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
Accused acquitted on two corruption counts because prosecution failed to prove the alleged donor identified in the indictment.
Anti‑corruption – Corrupt practices with a private body – solicitation and receipt of cash gratification – digital forensic WhatsApp evidence and bank records – corroboration of an intermediary witness – failure to prove identity of alleged donor as charged.
|
|
Judgment |
2 February 2026 |
|
A constitutional petition cannot reopen issues already finally decided by the Supreme Court; the appellant lacked locus standi.
Constitutional petitions – Article 28(1)(a) – Procedure – Order 3 Rule 2 (High Court Rules) not a basis for final dismissal of constitutional petitions – inherent jurisdiction to determine locus standi, res judicata and abuse of process – forfeiture under Corrupt Practices (Disposal of Recovered Property) Regulations – effect of a prior Supreme Court determination.
|
|
Judgment |
28 January 2026 |
|
Late subpoena application refused for non-compliance with Rule 7's 14-day disclosure requirement; pre-defence conference ordered.
Criminal procedure – subpoena duces tecum (s.143 CPC) – Economic and Financial Crimes Court Rules – Rule 7(1) 14‑day disclosure deadline – judicial discretion to extend time – strict adherence to expedited procedure.
|
|
Judgment |
21 January 2026 |
|
Removal of an accused does not require fresh DPP consent if charges against remaining accused remain unchanged.
Anti-Corruption Commission Act s64 — DPP consent to prosecute — Effect of discharge/removal of an accused on existing consent — No fresh consent required where substantive charges unchanged; pleas not rendered nullity.
|
|
Judgment |
17 November 2025 |
|
Court granted subpoenas for finance and health ministry records but dismissed unrelated document requests; filing extension deferred.
Criminal procedure — Subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandum — Section 143 CPC — requirement of relevance and sufficient description of documents — Economic and Financial Crimes Court Rules — variation of time to file defence bundle.
|
|
Judgment |
21 October 2025 |
|
Court found prima facie breaches of procurement law and put accused on their defence.
Criminal procedure – No case to answer (Japau test); Public procurement – requisition requirement; limited bidding – requirement to record reasons; contract termination – required approvals; solicitation and evaluation – mandatory methodology and post‑qualification records.
|
|
Judgment |
1 September 2025 |
|
Warrant of seizure under the Anti‑Corruption Act is temporary; prolonged unjustified freezing of funds requires discharge.
Anti‑corruption seizures – section 58 warrant as temporary investigative custody – section 75 does not import Forfeiture Act time limits – seizure cannot be indefinite – High Court jurisdiction where value exceeds Subordinate Court limits – remedy: discharge where unjustified prolonged retention.
|
|
Judgment |
13 June 2025 |
|
Court admitted secondary copies where originals were not found after an adequate search by a competent procurement witness.
Secondary evidence – admissibility of copies where originals unavailable – authentication by inspection – custody/possession of documents – standard of diligence in search (George Bienga).
|
|
Judgment |
8 June 2025 |
|
Non‑conviction forfeiture granted where unexplained disproportionate wealth and unregistered agreement failed to rebut reasonable suspicion.
Forfeiture – Non‑conviction civil forfeiture under Sections 29 and 31; Section 71 (possession suspected proceeds) as basis for reasonable suspicion; burden and standard of proof – balance of probabilities; evidential shift to interested party to prove legitimate source; unregistered land use agreement void under Lands and Deeds Registry Act; formal defects curable; property forfeited.
|
|
Judgment |
28 March 2025 |
|
Applicant must prove tainted property on a balance of probabilities; suspicion of foreign wrongdoing is insufficient.
Forfeiture — civil (non‑conviction) forfeiture — burden of proof on public prosecutor — 'tainted property' must be proved on balance of probabilities — mere reasonable suspicion or unparticularised foreign investigations insufficient — Section 29, 30(b), 31 and 34 Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act.
|
|
Judgment |
24 March 2025 |
|
Applicant’s failure to serve and publish the Notice of Application as ordered led to dismissal for non‑compliance with court directions.
Forfeiture proceedings – service of process – compliance with court directions – Notice of Application vs Notice of Hearing – requirement to seek leave for late service – Article 118(2)(e) and technicalities – dismissal for non‑compliance.
|
|
Judgment |
18 March 2025 |
|
Constitutional values alone do not found Constitutional Court jurisdiction; a specific constitutional question is required.
Constitutional jurisdiction – limits of Constitutional Court – national values and principles (Arts. 173, 216) not independently justiciable – interpretation vs. administrative/judicial review – requirement for specific constitutional question to invoke jurisdiction.
|
|
Judgment |
6 February 2025 |
|
Civil forfeiture is governed by civil procedure; Section 11 (conviction‑based) does not authorize State possession without court process; conditional stay granted.
Forfeiture law – distinction between conviction‑based and civil forfeiture; Section 11 interpretation; civil forfeiture governed by civil procedure – writs and possession; propriety of counsel deposing to affidavits; stay of execution pending appeal – prospects of success and irreparable harm.
|
|
Judgment |
22 January 2025 |
|
Court ordered non‑conviction forfeiture after finding reasonable suspicion of proceeds of crime and interested parties failed to rebut evidence.
Forfeiture (civil/non‑conviction) – Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act – reasonable suspicion standard – evidentiary burden shifts to interested party to prove lawful source – bank cash deposits, disproportionate assets v. declared income – scope of subject property (subdivision vs whole title) – government bonds, treasury bills and fixed deposits amenable to forfeiture when traceable to suspected proceeds.
|
|
Judgment |
20 December 2024 |
|
Court admitted a mixed-content bank credit file as evidence, holding proper foundation by the custodian suffices under Section 4.
Evidence — Documentary evidence — Admission of business records under Section 4 Evidence Act — Mixed originals and copies admissible with proper foundation — Custodian witness — George Bienga authority — Bank mandate file practice.
|
|
Judgment |
26 November 2024 |
|
Application to expunge affidavit passages and grant leave to appeal over refusal to allow examination of summoned witnesses in forfeiture proceedings.
Civil procedure — Affidavit evidence — Limits on affidavits (opinion, legal argument, speculation) — Expungement under Order 41 White Book; Forfeiture proceedings — oral evidence vs affidavit procedure — legitimate expectation to call witnesses; Leave to appeal — realistic prospects of success and questions of public importance.
|
|
Judgment |
4 November 2024 |
|
Civil non‑conviction forfeiture application alleging Simonga Farm was acquired with proceeds of corruption; key issues include tainted property, proof standard, and proprietary interests.
:[
|
|
Judgment |
31 October 2024 |
|
Order 20 Rule 11 cannot be used to expand a judgment to grant substantive, unpleaded reliefs.
Slip rule (Order 20 r.11) — correction of clerical mistakes or accidental slips only — cannot be used to grant unpleaded substantive relief; pleadings define reliefs; court functus officio after judgment.
|
|
Judgment |
30 October 2024 |
|
Leave granted because non‑conviction forfeiture issues raise points of law of public importance.
Non‑conviction asset forfeiture — admissibility of evidence from criminal investigations in civil forfeiture — burden of proof under s33 FPOCA — individual culpability — leave to appeal under s13.
|
|
Judgment |
7 October 2024 |
|
A subordinate court cannot state a case under section 341 during an ongoing trial; SI No.10/2024 does not oust jurisdiction.
Criminal procedure – Section 341 CPC – Case stated may only be made after hearing and determination – Timing of case-stated procedure – Statutory Instrument No.10/2024 Rule 3 – Effluxion of time does not automatically oust subordinate court jurisdiction – Frivolous/dilatory applications.
|
|
Judgment |
6 October 2024 |
|
High Court dismissed application for want of jurisdiction to challenge a subordinate court's warrant of seizure.
Jurisdiction – challenge to warrant of seizure issued by Subordinate Court – High Court’s (Economic and Financial Crimes Division) jurisdiction is broad but not limitless – court orders subsist until set aside by issuing court – absence of challenge in issuing court bars High Court determination – matter dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
|
|
Judgment |
30 September 2024 |
|
Non-conviction forfeiture allowed where applicant proves reasonable suspicion from income–asset disparity; interested party failed to rebut on balance of probabilities.
Non-conviction forfeiture – admissibility of electronic bank records and valuation reports – reasonable suspicion based on unexplained wealth/income-asset disparity – burden and standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings – Section 31(2) interest defence – investigating officer evidence on financial analysis.
|
|
Judgment |
27 September 2024 |
|
The court dismissed the applicants' jurisdictional challenge as res judicata and warned against unlawful access to court records.
Jurisdiction — Economic and Financial Crimes Court; transfer of matter — abatement by effluxion of time; res judicata and abuse of process; access to court records — Section 50 Subordinate Courts Act.
|
|
Judgment |
26 September 2024 |
|
Court extended the five‑month trial limit by 45 days under Rule 3(2) and refused a constitutional referral; trial to continue.
Criminal procedure — Statutory time limits (S.I
No.10/2024 Rule 3) — Commencement and computation of five‑month limit — Extension under Rule 3(2) — Jurisdiction not automatically lost on expiry — Constitutional reference unnecessary
|
|
Judgment |
3 September 2024 |
|
Court ordered civil forfeiture of assets acquired from contracts obtained by false pretences; interested parties failed to rebut taint.
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime – Non-conviction forfeiture – jurisdiction under Sections 29, 31, 71 FPOCA – civil standard (balance of probabilities) – procurement misrepresentation – Key Personnel requirement – false pretences (Penal Code s309) – proceeds of crime – burden shift and unexplained wealth – forfeiture and costs.
|
|
Judgment |
21 August 2024 |
|
Court granted the State leave to amend prosecution witness and document lists under Rule 5(6), finding no fatal prejudice to the defence.
Criminal procedure — Economic and Financial Crimes Court Rules 2024 — Rule 5(6) — Amendment of prosecution witness and document lists — Disclosure obligations — Prejudice to defence — Leave to amend.
|
|
Judgment |
21 August 2024 |
|
Court convicted the accused of possessing assets suspected as proceeds of crime and of obtaining subsistence allowances by false pretences.
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — possession of property reasonably suspected of being proceeds — reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts and asset/income disparity; evidential burden on accused who testifies; exclusion of defence material for non‑compliance with SI No.10/2024 disclosure rules; false pretences for subsistence allowances proven by absence of corroborating activity reports and phone-location evidence.
|
|
Judgment |
26 July 2024 |
|
A statutory anti‑corruption agency may be a "public prosecutor" and taint of property must be decided on full evidence, not interlocutory review.
Forfeiture law — public prosecutor — statutory anti‑corruption agency as prosecutor; Forfeiture proceedings — tainted property — merits issue not for interlocutory determination; Civil forfeiture — non‑conviction based — parallel to criminal proceedings; Abuse of process — forum shopping — not established by concurrent civil and criminal actions; Costs — discretionary; parties to bear own costs due to novel issues.
|
|
Judgment |
22 July 2024 |
|
Failure to serve the person with a fresh third‑party Restriction Notice renders it void; warrant of seizure lawful and ACC may investigate PTT.
Anti‑corruption investigations – Section 61 third‑party restriction notices – service requirements – validity; Distinction between Restriction Notice and Warrant of Seizure – custody vs status quo; ACC powers under s.6(1)(b) to investigate offences under other written laws including Property Transfer Tax; judicial restraint in civil proceedings that would arrest ongoing criminal investigations.
|
|
Judgment |
21 June 2024 |
|
Civil NCB forfeiture requires statutory notice and proof linking property to crime; criminal cautions demand voluntariness safeguards.
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — Non-conviction (in rem) forfeiture — FPOCA notice requirements (s30) — Service out of jurisdiction vs statutory notice — Admissibility of warn and caution statements obtained in criminal investigations in civil forfeiture — Voluntariness and probative weight — Two-stage test for tainted property — Standard of proof: balance of probabilities.
|
|
Judgment |
11 June 2024 |
|
Failure to give statutorily required notice and lack of evidence connecting property to crime invalidated non-conviction forfeiture.
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime — Non-conviction forfeiture — Mandatory notice under s30 — "Tainted property" definition and burden on balance of probabilities — Inadmissibility/insufficiency of intelligence evidence — Improper focus on financial capacity.
|
|
Judgment |
11 June 2024 |
|
Court granted non‑conviction forfeiture of assets as proceeds of crime and declared victim's entitlement to restitution from disposal proceeds.
Non-conviction forfeiture; Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act – tainted property and proceeds of crime; civil standard (balance of probabilities) in forfeiture proceedings; victim's declaration of interest and restitution; recognition of equitable/beneficial interest where legal title in third party.
|
|
Judgment |
15 May 2024 |
|
A witness statement does not replace oral examination in chief; it is a disclosure tool and may assist cross-examination.
Criminal procedure – witness statements – not standalone evidence – examination-in-chief under Criminal Procedure Code remains required – Statutory Instrument No.10 of 2024 cannot displace primary legislation – disclosure and cross-examination – Simon Miyoba v The People.
|
|
Judgment |
15 May 2024 |
|
Applicant failed to show fresh evidence or compliance with mandatory Section 30(a) service requirements; review application dismissed.
Procedure — Review of own judgment under Order XXXIX Rule 1 — Fresh evidence test (materiality, effect, existence before decision, discovery after decision, due diligence) — Mandatory service requirements under Section 30(a) Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act — Originating notice must be served with affidavit and skeleton arguments.
|
|
Judgment |
10 May 2024 |
|
Court held EFCC Division rules apply to pending cases and dismissed the jurisdictional challenge as unmeritorious.
Criminal procedure — jurisdiction of Economic and Financial Crimes Division — SI No.10/2024 (E&F Crimes Rules) — Rule 17 retrospective application to pending proceedings — cause-listing by National Prosecution Authority — disclosure and fair trial — procedural challenge inappropriate to delay proceedings.
|
|
Judgment |
3 May 2024 |
|
Whether non‑conviction civil forfeiture is warranted where property value far exceeds the proprietor's known income.
Non‑conviction forfeiture; tainted property and proceeds of crime; burden shifting to interested party under s.31(2) FPOCA; admissibility/curability of affidavit/form defects; compatibility with constitutional property rights (Article 16).
|
|
Judgment |
16 April 2024 |
|
Appellants convicted for theft by fraudulent conversion; immunity rejected; statutory judgment set aside; interest to be paid to Treasury.
Criminal law — Theft by public servant — Theft may be by taking or by fraudulent conversion — Particulars of charge sufficient; conversion established. Prosecutorial misconduct — Alleged witness tampering not substantiated. Statutory immunity — Sections 90 & 10 Postal Services Act inapplicable where acts not in good faith and lacking required approvals. Directors' liability — Directors may be criminally liable where they direct the mind of a corporate body. Section 171(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code — Statutory judgment unsuitable where principal funds were paid; interest to be determined and remitted to Treasury
|
|
Judgment |
15 March 2024 |
|
Court refused a rejoinder and cross-examination, finding affidavit evidence sufficient for an in rem forfeiture hearing.
Forfeiture in rem – procedure – clarifying/rejoinder affidavits – reply/rejoinder generally reserved for applicant; cross-examination of affidavit deponents – discretionary and exceptional; test: insufficiency of affidavit evidence, existence of contentious factual issues, and good and convincing reasons to subpoena; Section 31(2) burden for interested parties to prove legitimate interest.
|
|
Judgment |
7 March 2024 |
|
Court acquitted the Project Manager of abuse of office but convicted the Site Engineer and contractor for corrupt gratification.
Abuse of office; corrupt practices (receipt and giving of gratification); evidential value of bank records and deposit slips; procurement/payment authorisation and thresholds; burden and standard of proof.
|
|
Judgment |
1 March 2024 |
|
Court extended the five‑month hearing period under S.I. No.10/2024 by 45 days and refused a constitutional referral.
Criminal procedure — S.I
No.10/2024 (Rules) — Rule 3 five‑month hearing limit — commencement of time in carry‑over cases — Rule 17 application to pending proceedings — extension of time under Rule 3(2) and Section 37 (Interpretation Act) — purposive construction (Citibank v Dudhia) — no loss of jurisdiction on expiry — constitutional reference refused
|
|
Judgment |
6 January 2024 |
|
Whether evidence supported convictions for theft by public servant and money‑laundering, and whether sentencing, forfeiture and costs orders were lawful.
Criminal law — Theft by public servant — proof requires evidence of original theft and diversion — documentary and circumstantial corroboration; Money‑laundering — transactions in proceeds of crime — consolidation of repetitive counts into a single laundering conviction; Judicial conduct — mere prior employment with prosecution authority does not mandate recusal; Forfeiture — assets proved to derive from proceeds of crime subject to forfeiture; Sentencing — concurrent vs consecutive sentences and appellate adjustment; Statutory judgment — must account for value of forfeited assets before entry.
|
|
Judgment |
22 December 2023 |
|
A Section 80 settlement registered before later prosecution bars prosecution until a court discharges the agreement.
Anti-Corruption Act s80 – settlement undertakings – timing of institution of criminal proceedings – immunity from prosecution – discharge of undertaking via Subordinate Court (s80(4), s86).
|
|
Judgment |
15 November 2023 |
|
Whether the prosecution proved that the accused, a public servant, fraudulently moved and sold government containers.
Criminal law - Theft by public servant - Elements: actus reus (taking/movement) and mens rea (fraudulent intent) - Proof that property belonged to Government - Evidential corroboration of witness testimony and transactions - Disposal of government assets and role of Ministry of Works and Supply.
|
|
Judgment |
23 March 2023 |
|
An s.80 Anti‑Corruption Commission undertaking cannot bar prosecution once criminal proceedings have commenced.
Criminal procedure – Section 80(3) Anti-Corruption Act – undertaking not to institute criminal proceedings – applies only before prosecution is commenced; autrefois acquit/double jeopardy – requires prior trial and acquittal – registered undertaking is not an acquittal; nolle prosequi distinguished; appeal allowed and matter remitted for rehearing.
|
|
Judgment |
10 November 2022 |
|
A s58 warrant under the Anti‑Corruption Act attracts criminal jurisdiction; the High Court may grant an out‑of‑time appeal without hearing the parties.
Anti‑Corruption Act s58 – seizure warrants; criminal jurisdiction; interplay with Criminal Procedure Code (s2, s321A, s322 proviso, s324); out‑of‑time appeals; High Court discretion; procedural misdirection by subordinate court.
|
|
Judgment |
30 August 2022 |
|
Documents like registration extracts and bills of lading need not be authenticated under the Act; claimant established pre‑offence interest, so forfeiture set aside.
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime – third‑party claims under ss.12(2) and 31(2) – proof of interest and timing of acquisition – Authentication of Documents Act – what constitutes a document requiring authentication – burden of proof on claimant.
|
|
Judgment |
28 July 2022 |
|
Plaintiff must specify defamatory words and correct inconsistent/unstated damage claims or face dismissal; exemplary/aggravated damages must be specifically pleaded.
Civil procedure – Order 14A preliminary issues; Defamation – requirement to plead words complained of (Order 18, Rule 7); Libel by schedule – leave required; Pleadings – embarrassing/inconsistent endorsements; Distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims; Requirement to specifically plead exemplary and aggravated damages (Order 18, Rule 12).
|
|
Judgment |
27 May 2022 |
|
Warrant of seizure set aside because supporting affidavit was not filed and the instrument lacked any directive, amounting to abuse of process.
Anti-Corruption Act – seizure warrants – supporting affidavit must be filed (Order 5 r.11 Subordinate Court Rules) – warrant must contain directive to seize – material defect under Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act s35 – restriction notice v. warrant – abuse of process.
|
|
Judgment |
19 May 2022 |
|
Court upholds civil non-conviction forfeiture: vehicle used in offence was tainted and claimant lacked sufficient interest to resist forfeiture.
Forfeiture of proceeds of crime – non-conviction civil forfeiture under ss.29–31 FPOCA – jurisdiction and mode of commencement – definition of tainted property – claimant’s sufficient legal or equitable interest and onus under s.31(2).
|
|
Judgment |
30 November 2021 |
|
Alleged forged tax clearance and proceeds-of-crime suspicions not proved; all accused acquitted.
Criminal law – making and uttering false documents – tax clearance certificates – authority and procedural irregularities at revenue office – obtaining pecuniary advantage by false pretences – proceeds of crime – reasonable suspicion – burden of proof – acquittal.
|
|
Judgment |
9 September 2021 |