Justice Mohammed Kullow rejects four legal challenges by Makadara MP George Aladwa, his family, and associated entities, allowing EACC to pursue recovery of a KSh65 million public property allegedly irregularly acquired and subsequently used to secure a KSh22.3 million SACCO loan.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has survived a major legal challenge involving George Aladwa and disputed public land.
The Environment and Land Court dismissed objections seeking to terminate the Commission’s recovery proceedings before trial.
Justice Mohammed Kullow ruled that the defendants had failed to establish grounds for striking out the suit.
The November 9, 2026 ruling allows the Commission’s substantive case to proceed against seven defendants.
They include Aladwa, his mother Mary M’Mboga Aladwa, and three other family members.
Julgem Communications Services Limited and Bunge Sacco Society Limited are also defendants.
The dispute centres on allegations of fraud and illegality involving the acquisition of public property.
However, the judge did not determine whether the disputed property was unlawfully acquired.
Instead, he examined four legal objections filed by the second to sixth defendants.
Four Challenges
The defendants filed a Preliminary Objection dated November 26, 2025, seeking dismissal of the EACC’s suit.
They argued that the proceedings were incompetent, vexatious, and an abuse of court process.
They also questioned the qualifications of the advocate representing the Commission.
Additionally, they accused EACC of usurping the National Land Commission’s constitutional mandate.
Their final argument was that the recovery proceedings violated the statutory 12-year limitation period.
On the first objection, the defendants questioned why investigators had proceeded against subsequent proprietors.
They argued that EACC should have pursued Fatuma Mohamed before proceeding against other defendants.
They further claimed that investigators had failed to establish the property’s ownership history.
However, Justice Kullow found that these arguments required examination of evidence.
He observed that determining the circumstances surrounding the property’s transfers required substantive investigation.
The judge relied on Oraro v Mbaja, which established the legal requirements governing preliminary objections.
He explained that such objections must raise pure questions of law.
They cannot depend on disputed facts requiring proof through evidence.
“The first ground does not raise a proper preliminary point of law,” the judge concluded.
EACC’s Mandate
The defendants also argued that the National Land Commission exclusively handled constitutional responsibilities concerning public land.
They relied on Article 67 of the Constitution and the National Land Commission Act.
However, Justice Kullow found that the two institutions possessed distinct statutory responsibilities.
He particularly cited Section 11(1)(j) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act.
The provision empowers EACC to institute proceedings seeking recovery or protection of public property.
It also covers freezing or confiscating proceeds arising from corruption.
The judge relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Boniface Katana Kalaveri v EACC.
That decision recognised the Commission’s authority to pursue allegedly unlawfully acquired public property.
Justice Kullow consequently rejected claims that EACC had usurped the National Land Commission’s mandate.
“The mandate of the National Land Commission does not, by itself, oust” EACC’s statutory powers.
However, the judge emphasised that the property’s legal status remained unresolved.
Whether the land constitutes unlawfully acquired public property must be determined during trial.
The Limitation Battle
The defendants maintained that the second defendant had held the property beyond 12 years.
They therefore argued that Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act barred recovery proceedings.
The provision generally prohibits land recovery actions after twelve years.
However, Justice Kullow found that the defendants had overlooked other relevant statutory provisions.
He examined Section 26, which addresses limitation periods involving allegations of fraud.
Under that provision, limitation generally begins when the alleged fraud becomes discoverable.
The court observed that determining when EACC discovered the alleged fraud required examination of evidence.
It therefore rejected attempts to resolve the limitation question through preliminary proceedings.
The judge also considered Section 42 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
That provision excludes specified proceedings involving recovery or compensation for loss of public property.
Consequently, the passage of 12 years did not automatically bar the Commission’s claim.
The court found that the defendants had failed to establish their limitation objection.
Case Proceeds
The defendants raised another challenge concerning the qualifications of EACC’s advocate.
They argued that the lawyer required gazettement under Section 10(d) of the Advocates Act.
However, the judge distinguished this provision from Section 9 governing advocates’ qualifications.
Section 9 requires admission, enrolment and possession of a valid practising certificate.
The Commission produced its advocate’s practising certificate, which the court considered sufficient.
Justice Kullow found that Section 10(d) imposed no additional qualification upon advocates satisfying Section 9.
The defendants therefore failed to demonstrate that the proceedings were legally incompetent.
Having rejected all four objections, Justice Kullow dismissed the Preliminary Objection.
He ordered that its costs would remain in the cause.
The decision represents a procedural victory for EACC, not a final determination of ownership.
The Commission must still prove its allegations through evidence during the substantive proceedings.
Neither the disputed property’s ownership nor the defendants’ alleged culpability has been finally determined.
For now, the ruling removes four legal obstacles confronting the Commission’s recovery efforts.
The substantive question remains whether the disputed property was unlawfully acquired.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
