Blow to Wamatangi as High Court clears way for Sh813 million EACC recovery suit

Kiambu Governor Paul Kimani Wamatangi has failed in his bid to have a Sh813.1 million asset recovery case against him struck out, after the High Court dismissed five applications filed by him and other defendants.

Justice Rose Ougo, in a ruling delivered on October 1, 2026, declined applications seeking to terminate the case at the preliminary stage, finding that the allegations contained in the pleadings require evidence to be tested during a full hearing.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) is seeking to recover Sh813,145,532.40 from Wamatangi and other defendants, together with forfeiture of funds held in the bank accounts of five companies linked to the case.

The recovery proceedings concern payments made for road contracts awarded by the Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA), Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KeRRA) and Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA).

Governor Wamatangi, who is listed as the first defendant, had asked the court to strike out the suit on grounds including failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, alleged abuse of the court process and the argument that the proceedings were scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.

According to the ruling, the Kiambu boss argued that he was not a director of the companies involved and had not participated in preparing or submitting tender applications for the road contracts.

He also denied communicating with employees or officials of the three road agencies in connection with the tenders and therefore disputed the allegation that he influenced their award.

Wamatangi further argued that the proceedings were politically motivated and intended to damage his reputation and affect his political prospects.

He also contended that the recovery case duplicated matters before the court in a separate constitutional petition.

EACC opposed the application, arguing that its investigations had established that Wamatangi influenced the tender processes and awards and had a beneficial interest in the companies that received the contracts.

The Commission also alleged that forged or falsified documents were used to demonstrate technical and financial capacity in order to obtain some of the tenders.

Justice Ougo found that the issues raised by the defendants could not properly be determined through an application to strike out the case.

The judge noted that the pleadings contained allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and falsification of documents, which, if pursued by EACC, would have to be substantiated through evidence.

The court also considered the position of the other defendants who had argued that they were being sued merely because they were directors of companies that were separate legal entities.

Justice Ougo held that the question of whether the corporate veil should ultimately be lifted was not ripe for determination because the suit remained at a preliminary stage.

“In conclusion, I am inclined to disallow the Applications to strike out the 1st and 7th to 13th Defendants/Applicants at this stage, on the ground that the pleadings, as drawn, are not so hopeless as against them as to warrant striking them out,” Justice Ougo ruled.

The judge added that EACC would have to prosecute its case and provide sufficient evidence, noting that the court could dismiss the suit against individual defendants later if no cause of action was ultimately established against them personally.

Wamatangi's application centred on his previous position as chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Roads, Transport and Housing.

He argued that parliamentary privilege protected him from the proceedings because the allegations related to conduct undertaken while performing his parliamentary functions.

Justice Ougo examined Sections 11 and 12 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act and found that the protections were intended to cover the discharge of lawful parliamentary functions and were not intended to shield members from allegations of unlawful conduct.

“Accordingly, I find that sections 11 and 12 of the Parliamentary Powers and Privilege Act are inapplicable to the suit herein,” the judge ruled.

The court also rejected Wamatangi's argument that the recovery case was sub judice because of Constitutional Petition E455 of 2025.

Justice Ougo said he had not been provided with sufficient material demonstrating that the parties and issues in the two cases were the same.