The anti-corruption agency has secured orders preserving land and six vehicles linked to a member of Embu County Assembly, pending determination of an asset recovery suit over allegations that his family-linked companies received Sh111.5 million in county contracts.
The High Court barred the MCA, Peter Muriithi Nyaga, and six companies from selling, transferring, charging or disposing of the assets, but allowed supervised commercial use pending the hearing of the recovery suit.
The dispute concerns 20 road construction and maintenance contracts awarded by the Embu County Government between 2017/18 and 2023/24. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) says five companies associated with Nyaga, his son and his wife received Sh111.5 million.
Mr Nyaga represents Mbeti North Ward. EACC says he served on Assembly committees dealing with infrastructure and public works.
Integrity Centre in Nairobi which houses the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission offices.
Photo credit: Pool I Nation Media Group
The commission alleges Mr Nyaga was a director and sole bank signatory of Truco Enterprises Ltd and Peanco Ltd, alongside his son. It says his wife owned or controlled Njewaco Ltd, Hasoco Ltd and Hiwco Ltd and was sole signatory to their accounts.
EACC told the court that the payments were used to purchase land parcel Mbeti/Kiamuringa/49, registered to Isaac & Timothy Company Ltd on June 10, 2019, for Sh9 million. It also traced six vehicles registered to Nyaga; a heavy machinery tractor registered to Truco; and two other vehicles, registered to Peanco.
EACC says the county government contracts created a conflict of interest and wants the money and assets recovered.
However, Mr Nyaga and the companies denied wrongdoing. They said the contracts were lawfully and competitively awarded, the work completed and the assets bought using business income and bank loans.
They argued the companies were separate legal entities and EACC had not shown Mr Nyaga influenced procurement decisions made by the county executive.
They said the land was an extraction site and vehicles were operational assets. Grounding them, they argued, would cause deterioration, disrupt contracts and expose them to penalties. They denied plans to dispose of the properties.
Justice Joseph Biomdo, in his ruling, found that EACC had established a case requiring asset preservation.
“I find that if the Defendants were to dispose of said properties, the Plaintiff will have no assets to recover in furtherance of its statutory mandate should the main suit succeed,” he said.
The judge accepted that keeping the vehicles idle could cause financial waste and disrupt infrastructure work. He varied the orders to allow supervised use, while prohibiting sale, transfer, assignment, charging or other disposal.
The Land Registrar and NTSA were directed to restrict the land title and vehicle logbooks. The defendants must insure all six vehicles and file proof in court within 30 days.
They must also install GPS tracking devices at their own cost and give EACC real-time access. The parties are required to conduct bi-monthly physical inspections. The defendants must file sworn quarterly reports detailing location, contract use and maintenance.
Any breach, or unapproved movement of vehicles outside the court’s jurisdiction, will trigger “an automatic, immediate, and total grounding of all assets by the plaintiff without further reference to this Court.”
The ruling follows an earlier forfeiture case involving Mr Nyaga and three of the same vehicles. In November 2025, the High Court dismissed an Assets Recovery Agency application to forfeit three vehicles over allegations that they were bought using proceeds of corruption linked to county contracts.
The court found that the agency had not produced evidence showing Mr Nyaga influenced the tenders. The ARA investigator could not identify any act by Mr Nyaga influencing the awards.
"The applicant has not established a case against the first respondent which would have demanded that he explains the source of the funds he used in purchasing the motor vehicles in issue," the court said then, dismissing ARA's application.
Mr Nyaga relied on that judgment to oppose EACC’s latest application, arguing that the new suit repeated issues already decided. EACC said its case was different because it concerned 20 county contracts worth Sh111.5 million and traced their proceeds to the assets.
Justice Biomdo identified whether the new suit was barred by the earlier judgment as an issue for trial. He did not finally decide that objection or order forfeiture, instead he ordered preservation pending determination of EACC’s recovery claim.
