By Vivian Navate
The Director of Public Prosecutions has moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court decision that halted criminal proceedings against Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya in a case linked to alleged financial impropriety involving county funds.
Through a Notice of Appeal, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is challenging a judgment delivered on March 4, 2026 by Justice Bahati Mwamuye. In that decision, the judge stopped the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission from investigating the governor, recommending charges, or pursuing criminal proceedings arising from the matter.
The court went further and ruled that the criminal case that had been filed at the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court was unconstitutional and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
The dispute traces back to investigations into financial transactions connected to companies that had business dealings with the County Government of Trans Nzoia. Prosecutors had alleged that between January 1, 2023 and April 30, 2025 the governor unlawfully benefited from county payments through companies associated with private individuals.
Among the entities mentioned in the case were Lyma Agro Science Limited, Maira Stores and Easterly Winds Limited. According to investigators, the transactions created a situation of conflict of interest because the companies were trading with the county government while the governor allegedly benefited indirectly from the same dealings.
The prosecution claimed that Natembeya obtained an indirect pecuniary interest of Sh1,127,900 from Mercy Chelangat, a director of Lyma Agro Science Limited and proprietor of Maira Stores. Investigators also alleged that he received Sh2,124,668 from Emmanuel Wafula Masungo, the beneficial owner of Easterly Winds Limited.
Based on those claims, the governor had been charged with unlawful acquisition of public property valued at Sh3,252,568 and two counts of conflict of interest contrary to Section 42(3) as read together with Section 48 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
The charges were filed after investigators publicly claimed that the county government had suffered losses running into Sh1.4 billion. However, the High Court later noted that the figure had been widely publicised before proper verification and had contributed to a prosecution process that was not entirely impartial.
Natembeya subsequently moved to the High Court challenging the legality of his arrest, detention and the manner in which investigators gathered evidence against him. He argued that his constitutional rights had been violated during the process.
In the judgment, Justice Mwamuye agreed with the governor and found that the investigative process had serious procedural flaws. The court said the governor had been denied access to legal counsel at a critical stage and that search warrants were executed in a manner that failed to meet the threshold of due process.
The judge also criticised what he described as premature charging and reliance on evidence that was obtained after the charges had already been filed.
“The respondent’s conduct of premature charging, reliance on post-factual evidence, denial of legal representation and publicising unverified allegations constitutes a clear abuse of power and malafides under Article 157(11),” the court observed.
Consequently, the court quashed the arrest and detention of Natembeya, prohibited the use of evidence obtained through the impugned process and barred further investigations or prosecution connected to the case.
“A declaration be and is hereby issued that the institution and continuation of criminal proceedings in the Milimani Anti-Corruption Case of 2025 is an abuse of process, is unlawful and unconstitutional,” the judge ruled.
The court also confirmed earlier conservatory orders that had temporarily protected the governor during the proceedings.
In addition, the High Court awarded Natembeya Sh2.5 million in general damages for what it termed humiliation, distress and reputational damage arising from the unlawful process. The amount will attract interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, with legal costs also awarded against the respondents.
The DPP is now seeking to have that judgment set aside by the appellate court, arguing that the High Court improperly restricted investigative and prosecutorial agencies from performing their constitutional mandate.
