"The reference in the investigators
supporting affidavit to pending criminal cases does not lend credence to this
case as the scope of this case appears to extend far beyond the specific
tenders, the subject of the criminal case," the affidavits read.
The State has asked the court to gag three members of the Ngirita family by expunging affidavits detailing the sources of their wealth and the business transactions it had with the NYS and the Ministry of Gender and Youth Affairs that led to the seizure of properties they claim have no bearing with the pending criminal cases they face in court.
According to the Assets Recovery Agency lawyer, Peter Ngumi, the affidavits as filed, "have gone beyond expectations when the trial court granted the respondents leave to file further responses."
The respondent’s lawyer, Edwin Waudo, told the court that the Ngiritas have leeway to respond to the allegations leveled against them in totality, since "their entire wealth is supposed to be forfeited to the State for unexplained reasons."
"They were allowed to file additional responses to justify what they own which has been alleged to have been acquired from crime proceeds and a court cannot be told to constrain that," the lawyer submitted.
In the affidavit, the respondents, Phylis Njeri Ngirita, Lucy Wambui Ngirita and Jeremiah Gichini Ngirita have also questioned the manner in which the investigations were done claiming the respective courts and investigators did not give them an opportunity to respond to accusations leveled against them before their accounts were frozen and properties seized.They have also annexed documents showing they have been engaged in legitimate business over the years to justify what they own and that the sources of their wealth can be explained.
"These are matters the court must address in all fairness," Waudo submitted.
The respondents have also challenged the seizure of their property on grounds that the properties have no bearing to the criminal cases pending before the chief magistrates’ court.
"The reference in the investigators supporting affidavit to pending criminal cases does not lend credence to this case as the scope of this case appears to extend far beyond the specific tenders, the subject of the criminal case," the affidavits read.
The respondents aver that the asset forfeiture claim made against them by the applicant is intended to oppress or punish them and not recover any purported proceeds of crime as provided for in law.
"There is reason to believe that no investigations were ever carried out by the Agency in respect of the matters that fall within its legal mandate under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti money laundering Act, 2009, the affidavits add"
Ngumi however told the court that the respondents should be restricted in their response to only file invoices and receipts.The defiance lawyer counter argued that in case the State wants the documents expunged then it must file a formal application and the respondents given an opportunity to respond.
"The court records are clear the order was not limited to filing specific documents," he said.
The lawyer also accused the State of deploying delay tactics in the matter, stating it is two months down the line and it has not filed a response but instead was looking for a seeming gaga order against the respondents.
Justice Mumbi Ngugi will give a ruling on February 25 2019 on whether the affidavits can be allowed to buttress the respondents’ case against the seizure of their properties by the Agency.
 |
Phylis Njeri Ngirita
and Ann Ngirita
|
The State has asked the court to gag three members of the Ngirita family by expunging affidavits detailing the sources of their wealth and the business transactions it had with the NYS and the Ministry of Gender and Youth Affairs that led to the seizure of properties they claim have no bearing with the pending criminal cases they face in court.
According to the Assets Recovery Agency lawyer, Peter Ngumi, the affidavits as filed, "have gone beyond expectations when the trial court granted the respondents leave to file further responses."
The respondent’s lawyer, Edwin Waudo, told the court that the Ngiritas have leeway to respond to the allegations leveled against them in totality, since "their entire wealth is supposed to be forfeited to the State for unexplained reasons."
"They were allowed to file additional responses to justify what they own which has been alleged to have been acquired from crime proceeds and a court cannot be told to constrain that," the lawyer submitted.
In the affidavit, the respondents, Phylis Njeri Ngirita, Lucy Wambui Ngirita and Jeremiah Gichini Ngirita have also questioned the manner in which the investigations were done claiming the respective courts and investigators did not give them an opportunity to respond to accusations leveled against them before their accounts were frozen and properties seized.They have also annexed documents showing they have been engaged in legitimate business over the years to justify what they own and that the sources of their wealth can be explained.
"These are matters the court must address in all fairness," Waudo submitted.
The respondents have also challenged the seizure of their property on grounds that the properties have no bearing to the criminal cases pending before the chief magistrates’ court.
"The reference in the investigators supporting affidavit to pending criminal cases does not lend credence to this case as the scope of this case appears to extend far beyond the specific tenders, the subject of the criminal case," the affidavits read.
The respondents aver that the asset forfeiture claim made against them by the applicant is intended to oppress or punish them and not recover any purported proceeds of crime as provided for in law.
"There is reason to believe that no investigations were ever carried out by the Agency in respect of the matters that fall within its legal mandate under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti money laundering Act, 2009, the affidavits add"
Ngumi however told the court that the respondents should be restricted in their response to only file invoices and receipts.The defiance lawyer counter argued that in case the State wants the documents expunged then it must file a formal application and the respondents given an opportunity to respond.
"The court records are clear the order was not limited to filing specific documents," he said.
The lawyer also accused the State of deploying delay tactics in the matter, stating it is two months down the line and it has not filed a response but instead was looking for a seeming gaga order against the respondents.
Justice Mumbi Ngugi will give a ruling on February 25 2019 on whether the affidavits can be allowed to buttress the respondents’ case against the seizure of their properties by the Agency.
0 Comments