Former KPA boss to pay for 'mystery' assets

Former KPA boss James Mulewa in court. FILE PHOTO | NMG

What you need to know:

  • James Mulewa had told the court that he was ready to give as personal security his Sh200 million parcel of land in exchange for his frozen assets but the court would hear none of it.
  • Mr Mulewa had argued that he was not given an opportunity to satisfy the court that the assets in question were acquired legally.
  • He also argued that after EACC presented its evidence, the court did not rule that it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it had proved a case that required his rebuttal.

Former Kenya Ports Authority (KRA) managing director James Mulewa suffered a setback after a court declined to suspend execution of a judgment in which he was ordered to pay the government Sh74.6 million for unexplained assets.

Justice Eric Ogola dismissed the application by Mr Mulewa. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) had opposed the application

The former MD had told the court that he was ready to give as personal security his Sh200 million parcel of land in exchange for his frozen assets but the court would hear none of it.

“The exchange of the property reduces the matter to a local commercial dispute, which it is not,” said Justice Ogola in his ruling. Justice Ogola noted that assets that have been frozen ought to act as a moral lesson that forfeited property cannot be traded with another.

The court also noted that the value of land, which was being offered as security could not be compared with the frozen urban assets. Mr Mulewa was seeking to have the judgment against him suspended pending hearing and determination of his appeal.

Mr Mulewa had argued that he was not given an opportunity to satisfy the court that the assets in question were acquired legally.

He also argued that after EACC presented its evidence, the court did not rule that it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it had proved a case that required his rebuttal.

“Failing to make a finding that a prima facie case had been established, the court failed to make a finding that the first defendant (Mr Mulewa) was required by such testimony to satisfy the court that the assets were acquired otherwise than as a result of corrupt conduct,” said Mr Mulewa.