Court upholds transfer of Kerra manager in Sh264 million questionable wealth probe
Construction works by Kenya Rural Roads Authority.
A former deputy director of a state roads agency who is battling a Sh264 million forfeiture suit with the government, has lost a bid to quash her transfer from the institution.
Ms Margaret Wanja Muthui wanted the court to quash the transfer letter dated February 10, 2021, which moved her from the Kenya Rural Roads Authority (Kerra) to the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works.
However, Justice Mathews Nduma said she failed to demonstrate that the deployment was not to a suitable position.
He observed that Kerra, for its part, showed that she was to deal with procurement matters within the ministry, which is her area of expertise.
“She has failed to disclose any cause of action against Kerra and the ministry pursuant to the deployment,” said the judge.
He stated that the transfer was lawful as he also quashed a decision by Kerra to suspend her from work.
The judge nullified a suspension letter issued to her on July 14, 2021 by Kerra, saying it was null and void because she was no longer an employee of the agency.
The judge said the letter has no effect on the employment of Ms Muthui since Kerra had no authority to suspend her, having lawfully transferred her to the ministry.
Her argument in the suit was that she had legitimate expectation to work for Kerra and not the ministry, in terms of her expertise.
Apart from her fight with Kerra, Ms Muthui is also embroiled in another court battle with the state-controlled Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) over allegations of illegally acquired wealth valued at more than Sh264 million.
The ARA wants to forfeit her property, including 11 apartments, which she allegedly acquired for Sh264 million in cash when the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) was withdrawing the old Sh1,000 bank note in a bid to tackle illicit financial flows.
In the suit, the state agency says Ms Muthui bought 11 apartments in Kileleshwa for Sh264 million in cash between July and September 24, 2019. She acquired another 12 units in a Ruaka flat in June 2019 for Sh15 million.
The agency says Ms Muthui bought the apartments herself or through proxies and a company whose directors were mostly her relatives or proxies during the demonetisation period.
Documents filed in court showed that she had, earlier in March 2019, acquired a flat of 12 units in Ruaka for Sh15 million.
Ms Muthui later acquired a house in Nairobi and land in Dagoretti and registered them in the names of other people.
Her bank accounts holding Sh94 million were frozen while the chief lands registrar was ordered by court to register caveats against each of the apartments and home she had bought in a move aimed at stopping their transfer or sale.
The judge also ordered a preservation of rental income from all the apartments and the houses.
Ms Muthui was employed by Kerra in 2009 as a procurement officer and was promoted to procurement manager in 2014.
All was well until February 2017, when she got a letter deploying her to Performance Management and Coordination under the presidency.
Barely two weeks later, her employer received the directive from the ministry redeploying her in the guise that she was an expert on low volume seal road contracts.
Also Read: Why most rural roads are in bad shape
Ms Muthui, however, said the deployment letter did not indicate the range of her duties at the new office, yet she had no idea of the function of her deployment.
In a judgment on February 19, 2018, Justice Hellen Wasilwa halted her transfer, saying the Ministry of Transport had no business directing Kerra to deploy her to the ministry.
She maintained that her deployment was nothing short of a witchhunt by the powers that be as she is being victimised for doing her duties as set out in her appointment letter.
“Indeed the decision was illogical because the employer of the Petitioner is the 2nd Respondent (Kerra) and not the ministry,” the judge said.
In 2021 she was transferred again to the ministry, prompting another round of legal dispute in which the court upheld the redeployment.
