The High Court has frozen Sh180 million held in two fixed deposit accounts of a health and motor vehicle insurance company following a successful application by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
The court froze the accounts of Irina Health and Motor Vehicle Insurance Company Limited held at Equity Bank’s Lodwar branch after finding the EACC had established a strong case linking the money to a suspected Sh282 million procurement fraud involving the Turkana County Government.
The freezing will remain in force pending determination of EACC’s recovery suit. EACC claims the companies and other defendants orchestrated a fraudulent procurement scheme through which they obtained a sum of Sh282.4 million, disguised as payments for procurement contracts.
The court barred the company together with Akimata Limited and Abenyo Amatwel Etiir from withdrawing, transferring, disposing of or otherwise dealing with the funds pending determination of the recovery suit.
The court said that EACC had demonstrated an arguable case warranting preservation because investigators traced Sh180 million into the accounts and the defendants had not produced documentary material explaining the specific transactions.
EACC alleges Irina Health received Sh85.1 million despite neither participating in the tender nor having the capacity to provide insurance services to the county government.
Akimata allegedly received Sh197.3 million through forged tender documents without supplying contracted goods. EACC said the payments were disguised as procurement contracts and that it later traced the disputed proceeds into fixed deposit accounts.
In court filings, EACC said Irina received the money despite neither participating in any tender nor providing, or having the capacity to provide, insurance services, while Akimata obtained payments by “submitting forged tender documents and failing to supply any goods.”
The defendants denied wrongdoing and argued the funds were lawfully acquired through tendering, contract execution, service delivery and payment. They said continuing preservation unfairly crippled operations, prevented payment of employees, taxes and statutory obligations, and no criminal culpability had been established.
They further argued preservation orders should not continue after investigations ended because EACC had already filed the recovery suit.
The court rejected that argument, saying filing the substantive case did not eliminate the risk that assets might be dissipated before judgment.
“If the funds are withdrawn, transferred or dissipated before trial, any eventual decree for recovery may be rendered ineffective,” the judge said.
EACC obtained earlier preservation orders in March 2025 after tracing the funds during investigations.
It later filed the civil recovery suit seeking restitution of Sh282.4 million and asked the court to freeze the accounts pending the suit’s determination.
In allowing the application, the judge said the commission had satisfied the legal test because it established a strong case, showed a risk of dissipation and demonstrated that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the disputed funds.
