Case Analysis

Asset Preservation Lawyer and Advocate at Milimani High Court — Anti-Corruption And Economic Crimes Division, Nairobi: Hardship Challenge Refused in Medallion

If you need a asset preservation lawyer at Milimani High Court — Anti-Corruption And Economic Crimes Division, Nairobi, an advocate should review your documents and any deadline. This article analyses Assets Recovery Agency v Medallion Properties Limited & another, explains the court’s decision and identifies practical records to prepare for a review of your situation.

A Nairobi asset preservation lawyer or advocate should match a discharge application to the grounds the court is being asked to apply. In Medallion, the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division dismissed a company's request to discharge or vary a bank-account preservation order. The court found that the business letters and explanations did not establish the hardship required for the relief sought. It did not finally forfeit the funds or convict the company or its directors.

The company sought access to preserved money

The Assets Recovery Agency obtained preservation on 8 January 2026 for ninety days. The company then sought discharge or partial access. It argued that suspicion of proceeds of crime was speculative, its funds were legitimately acquired, material facts had not been disclosed and related judicial review proceedings made the preservation improper.

The company described the KSh 11,239,102.37 as surplus from an auction of charged property and referred to investment income connected with a related entity, Trade Sense Limited. It also produced correspondence about loan default and proposed sale of property. Those explanations formed the company's case; the ruling did not adopt them as conclusive proof of the lawful source of every preserved sum.

The agency opposed the application

The agency's affidavit described suspicions concerning money laundering, tax evasion and investment activities without required licences. Those were allegations supporting the preservation position, not criminal convictions recorded in this ruling. The agency argued that the company's application failed to address the statutory conditions for discharge or variation.

The judge therefore considered the application under section 89(1) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act. The ruling focused on reasonable living expenses, undue hardship and the balance between hardship and the risk of destruction, concealment or transfer of the property.

The merits of eventual forfeiture remained separate

The judge declined to decide the final merits of whether the money was proceeds of crime in this application. It explained that the preservation stage concerns reasonable grounds for suspicion and that the ultimate merits would be addressed in forfeiture proceedings.

This distinction prevents temporary protection from being described as a final ownership judgment. The company remained able to contest the asset allegations in the appropriate proceedings. Equally, the absence of a conviction was not treated as sufficient by itself to discharge an asset-focused preservation order.

The judicial review proceedings involved a different entity and issue

The company relied on orders concerning Trade Sense Limited and a Capital Markets Authority licensing or suspension dispute. The judge reviewed the exhibited material and concluded that the entity and cause of action differed from the preservation of money in the respondent's account.

The ruling did not treat the judicial review order as a blanket shield for every asset connected with the company's director or related businesses. It distinguished regulation of trading activity from the allegation that property sold at auction had been acquired using proceeds of crime. Whether such a link could ultimately be proved remained outside the final merits of this application.

The hardship evidence was insufficient

The court held that the letters about loan obligations did not meet the threshold it was applying. It was not shown that the preserved sum was the only money available for those payments or that the preservation had grounded the company's operations. The judge also considered the scale of transactions described in the company's own affidavits.

The conclusion concerned the adequacy of the evidence for this request. It should not be inflated into a finding that account restrictions can never harm a business or that every loan obligation is irrelevant. A comparable enquiry requires records demonstrating the actual effect of the particular order.

The outcome and the limits of the record

The discharge or variation application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The conclusion labels the motion with a 2025 date, while the earlier narrative identifies January 2026; the neutral citation and ruling date identify the decision here. The judge also noted uncertainty about whether forfeiture had been filed after the ninety-day period and proceeded on an assumption that preservation remained in force.

The ruling therefore does not establish today's account status. An advocate enquiry should include all orders, any forfeiture file, bank restrictions, financial records and evidence of the alleged hardship. Medallion illustrates a failed challenge on the material provided while preserving the distinction between provisional restriction, hardship relief and final forfeiture.

Editorial analysis of the cited decision, checked on 5 October 2026. Practical document guidance is commentary; later orders may affect the current position.