Court Blocks Bid for IFMIS Data in KSh14.8 Million Nairobi Payment Case

Justice Benjamin Mwikya Musyoki has rejected a bid to compel EACC to produce IFMIS architecture. The decision leaves the defence pursuing other avenues for digital evidence.

A High Court judge has blocked an attempt to obtain the technical architecture behind Kenya’s payment system.

Justice Benjamin Musyoki rejected a request seeking IFMIS information from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission.

The ruling arose from a corruption recovery case involving alleged Nairobi County payments.

EACC is seeking KSh14.85 million from five defendants over payments allegedly made without corresponding supplies.

According to EACC, Nairobi County paid Keywharf Investments between July 21 and July 26, 2021.

The commission alleges the payments covered goods that were never supplied to the county.

However, the latest ruling did not determine whether fraud occurred or money was misappropriated.

Instead, Justice Musyoki examined a narrower but potentially important evidentiary dispute.

The dispute centred on how IFMIS identifies users behind transactions processed through its digital system.

Credentials Questioned

The request was made by Jeremy Muiriria, the fourth defendant in the proceedings.

Muiriria has denied participating in fraud, collusion or breach of official duty.

His defence hinges partly on what happened to his IFMIS credentials after his government transfer.

He told the court that he had moved to Nairobi Metropolitan Services.

He therefore denied having physical or operational access to IFMIS during the disputed transactions.

Muiriria admitted receiving an IFMIS user number before his transfer.

However, he denied using those credentials to approve the payments under investigation.

He argued that officials may have failed to deactivate his credentials after his transfer.

That possibility, he argued, meant another person could have accessed his account.

His lawyers therefore sought technical information explaining IFMIS authentication and transaction attribution.

They wanted evidence showing how the system connects particular transactions with individual users.

The request specifically targeted what Muiriria called the “architecture for IFMIS payment data structure”.

That information, he argued, could help establish who actually operated the account.

It could also distinguish genuine user activity from unauthorised use of existing credentials.

EACC Draws Line

EACC opposed the request, saying Muiriria was seeking information from the wrong institution.

The commission does not administer IFMIS or control its underlying technical architecture.

National Treasury manages the system, while EACC has only read-only access.

That access enables investigators to retrieve transaction information displayed through the system interface.

It does not give EACC access to the system’s back-end architecture or database structure.

EACC relied on evidence from a senior digital-forensics investigation officer.

The officer said National Treasury granted EACC read-only IFMIS access on March 1, 2017.

Investigators subsequently used that account to retrieve payment information relevant to investigations.

EACC said it had already disclosed the transaction extracts obtained through that limited access.

That distinction became central to Justice Musyoki’s eventual decision.

The judge found no evidence showing EACC could access or download IFMIS’s back-end architecture.

The court therefore rejected the assumption that EACC’s investigative powers extended throughout National Treasury’s systems.

“Investigative capacity and custody for purposes of compulsory production are not the same thing,” Justice Musyoki ruled.

Notice Falls Short

The judge also found problems with how Muiriria described the information he wanted.

The notice did not identify a particular document by title, date, author, version or module.

It also failed to identify the repository where the requested material supposedly existed.

Justice Musyoki said the request appeared to seek the entire IFMIS architecture.

That made the request broader than a conventional demand for a specific document.

The court held that a Notice to Produce requires more than showing potential relevance.

The requesting party must establish that the material exists and remains sufficiently identifiable.

The party must also show that the opposing side possesses or controls it.

“A notice cannot demand a document that does not exist,” Justice Musyoki stated.

The judge relied on earlier decisions addressing production of documents held by different institutions.

One authority involved EACC itself and stressed that parties cannot produce documents outside their custody.

Another decision held that production notices concern secondary evidence already held by another party.

Those principles proved decisive against Muiriria’s application.

The court also rejected an attempt to force EACC into further investigations.

Justice Musyoki acknowledged that additional technical evidence could potentially assist Muiriria’s defence.

However, the court said EACC could not be compelled to expand its investigations through this application.

The judge stressed that EACC must decide what evidence it considers sufficient for proving its case.

Treasury Route Open

Muiriria also invoked Article 35 of the Constitution, which protects access to information.

Justice Musyoki accepted the existence of that constitutional right.

However, he said the right could not be enforced through the procedure Muiriria had chosen.

The Access to Information Act provides a separate procedure for obtaining information from public bodies.

More importantly, National Treasury was not a party to the proceedings.

The Treasury was instead identified as the institution holding the requested technical information.

Muiriria also asked the court to draw an adverse inference against EACC.

The judge rejected that request because the necessary evidentiary foundation had not been established.

There was no sufficient proof that EACC possessed the requested architecture.

There was also no established basis showing that EACC had deliberately withheld the information.

Justice Musyoki left open the possibility of an adverse inference later during the substantive hearing.

He also declined to summon National Treasury’s Cabinet Secretary or Principal Secretary at this stage.

However, the judge said Muiriria could make a proper witness summons application later.

That opportunity would arise when the appropriate stage for his defence arrived.

The ruling therefore settles only the immediate evidentiary dispute before the court.

It does not determine who used Muiriria’s credentials during the disputed transactions.

Nor does it determine whether the alleged goods were supplied to Nairobi County.

Those questions remain alive within the broader KSh14.85 million recovery proceedings.

Justice Musyoki ultimately disallowed the Notice to Produce dated September 30, 2025.

He ordered that the costs of the proceedings would remain in the cause.

READ ALSO: High Court Blocks ARA’s KSh124 Million Bid After Chinese Buyer Gets Mud Instead of Ore

For Muiriria, one route to the IFMIS evidence has now closed.

The ruling, however, leaves other lawful avenues available for pursuing evidence held by National Treasury.

For EACC, the decision allows the commission to proceed using records already within its possession.

The deeper battle will eventually turn on what those records prove about the disputed payments.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.