NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has cleared the way for the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to pursue investigations and possible prosecution of lawyer Joseph Kimani Wachira over allegations of soliciting a KSh10 million bribe linked to businessman Raphael Tuju.
The court dismissed Wachira’s petition challenging the commission’s actions, ruling that he had not provided sufficient evidence to show that investigators acted unlawfully or violated his constitutional rights.
The decision lifts interim orders that had barred his arrest and prosecution. Wachira was also ordered to pay the costs of the case.
The allegations have drawn attention because the money was allegedly sought to influence the outcome of a commercial dispute involving Tuju and Dari Limited. The case concerned Garam Investment Auctioneers and other parties at the Milimani Commercial Courts.
Wachira has denied wrongdoing and maintained that he was the victim of a set-up.
Arrest in Karen
Wachira was arrested on 9 March 2026 during an EACC operation at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen, Nairobi.
The arrest followed allegations that he, Okiri Thomas Awili and the late former High Court judge Joseph Mutava had sought KSh10 million from Tuju to secure a favourable ruling in the commercial dispute.
According to the EACC, the alleged payment was intended for a sitting High Court judge handling the matter. The commission said it began investigating after receiving a complaint from Tuju.
Investigators reportedly arranged for conversations to be recorded using audio-visual equipment and supplied treated money before accompanying the complainant to the meeting.
The EACC said its officers moved in after receiving a signal from Tuju. They recovered KSh1 million in treated currency during the operation, according to the commission’s account presented in court.
These claims have yet to be established through a criminal trial.
Wachira challenges the investigation
Wachira moved to court to challenge the investigation, denying that he had solicited or received a bribe.
He argued that Tuju had produced the money without any prior demand or discussion. He further claimed that the operation had been arranged to implicate him.
In support of his position, Wachira relied on a statutory declaration by Awili, who allegedly described the operation as a set-up orchestrated by Tuju for personal gain.
The court declined to resolve the conflicting accounts at the constitutional petition stage, finding that questions surrounding the events required a proper assessment of evidence at trial.
It also found insufficient evidence to establish that EACC investigators had induced the commission of an offence or arranged the meeting to manufacture a crime.
Court backs EACC’s investigative mandate
In its ruling, the court said the EACC was acting within its constitutional and statutory mandate when it investigated the complaint.
The judge emphasised that courts should not interfere with investigations without clear evidence of illegality, malice, abuse of power or an absence of a factual basis.
“The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the EACC’s probe has crossed the high threshold of malice, clear lack of factual foundation, illegality, or ultra vires action to warrant judicial interference,” the court held.
The ruling does not establish that Wachira committed the alleged offence. It means his attempt to halt the investigation and potential prosecution has failed.
Dispute over recordings and constitutional rights
Wachira also accused the respondents of unlawfully releasing recordings of his arrest and the investigation to the public.
He argued that the disclosures damaged his reputation and could undermine the fairness of any future criminal proceedings. He cited alleged violations of his rights to dignity, privacy, equality, fair administrative action and a fair hearing.
The court found it premature to decide whether evidence allegedly obtained in violation of constitutional rights should be excluded from a trial, noting that formal charges had not been preferred against him at the time of the judgment.
The judge also referred to Article 50(4) of the Constitution, which provides for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of rights where its admission would render a trial unfair or otherwise harm the administration of justice.
The court further found that the extraction of information from Wachira’s mobile phones was supported by a court warrant authorising the examination of the devices.
Having found no constitutional violation warranting its intervention, the court dismissed the petition in its entirety, lifted the interim orders and directed Wachira to pay the costs.
The EACC can now proceed within the law, subject to the applicable investigative and prosecution processes. Any criminal charges and the allegations against Wachira would still need to be addressed through the justice system.
About the Author
