Nick Mwendwa Among Defendants as High Court Clears EACC to Pursue Sh220 Million CHAN Case

The High Court has given the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) the go-ahead to proceed with a lawsuit aimed at recovering over Sh220 million allegedly lost in a controversial procurement deal for the 2018 African Nations Championship (CHAN).

The ruling is a significant setback for contractor Gregori International and five other defendants, including former Sports Principal Secretary Kirimi Peter Kaberia and ex-Football Kenya Federation (FKF) President Nicholas Mwendwa. The group had sought to have the case dismissed before it could proceed to a full hearing.

In a decision delivered on July 31, 2026, Justice Rose Ougo of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Court rejected the application to strike out the suit. She ruled that the serious allegations of corruption and the loss of public funds warranted a thorough trial.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2025, also names John Ruga, Haron Komen Chebet, and Isaac Okoth Omogi as defendants, with the Principal Secretary for the State Department for Sports listed as an interested party.

At the heart of the case is a 2017-2018 tender for the design and rehabilitation of sports facilities for the CHAN tournament.

The EACC alleges that Gregori International was awarded the Sh995 million contract despite not being registered or accredited by the National Construction Authority at the time. The company reportedly secured its registration only after the contract was signed.

The anti-graft body claims that public officials colluded with the contractor to manipulate the procurement process, leading to the unlawful payment of Sh220.4 million from state coffers. The EACC is now seeking to recover these funds through the civil suit.

In their attempt to block the case, the defendants argued that the EACC had filed its suit too late and that the matter had already been settled in a separate commercial dispute.

In that earlier case, Gregori International had secured a partial judgment against the Ministry of Sports for breach of contract.

However, Justice Ougo determined that the EACC's case is fundamentally different. She noted that while the previous case dealt with contractual rights, the current suit is focused on recovering public money lost through alleged corruption.

The judge affirmed that allegations of fraudulent procurement, abuse of office, and illegal payments were not addressed in the commercial proceedings and must be examined through evidence at trial.

"The proceedings before the court are not based on an ordinary contractual dispute," Justice Ougo stated as quoted by Nation Sport.

The court also dismissed the argument that the case was filed outside the legal time limit, ruling that this could only be determined after hearing evidence on the alleged corrupt activities and the subsequent investigation.

A court has determined that a commercial dispute and a separate anti-corruption case, despite involving the same parties, address fundamentally different legal questions and can proceed independently.

The ruling clarified that while the earlier commercial case focused on an alleged breach of contract, the current lawsuit involves serious allegations of corruption, abuse of office, unlawful payments, and fraudulent procurement. These issues were not addressed or resolved in the previous proceedings.

The judge also rejected the argument that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) should be treated the same as the Attorney General's office.

The court distinguished their roles, noting that the Attorney General represents the government in civil matters, whereas the EACC holds an independent constitutional mandate to investigate corruption and recover public assets.

Furthermore, Justice Ougo dismissed claims that the EACC had abused the legal process by filing the recovery suit after a partial judgment had already been awarded to Gregori International in the commercial case.

The judge emphasised that allegations of corruption in public procurement are a matter of significant public interest and must be thoroughly examined through a full trial. "The present suit cannot be described as hopeless," the court stated, adding that the allegations "require full interrogation."