Court Awards Tech Entrepreneur Sh5 Million After Police Raid Violated His Rights
Tech entrepreneur Ndiangui Kinyagia has been awarded Sh5 million in damages after the High Court found that a police raid on his home violated his constitutional rights.
The case stems from a June 21, 2025, search of Kinyagia’s residence in Kinoo, Kiambu County, after police officers went to his home in connection with an investigation. The officers entered the house and seized several items after failing to find him.
Kinyagia went into hiding after learning that the officers had been to his residence, prompting concern from his family over his whereabouts.
Family Sought Help from Law Society of Kenya
His mother, who was unable to reach him, later sought the assistance of the Law Society of Kenya, which helped initiate habeas corpus proceedings seeking information on his whereabouts.
He subsequently resurfaced and told the court that he had gone into hiding because he feared for his safety.
The habeas corpus case was later closed, after which Kinyagia pursued the separate constitutional petition challenging the search, seizure of his property and the conduct of the investigation.
Court Finds Multiple Rights Violated
In the instant case, Justice Patricia Mande ruled that the Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) violated Kinyagia’s rights to privacy and property when officers entered his house, searched the premises and seized several items on June 21, 2025.
The court also found that the authority, alongside the Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja, violated his rights to dignity, freedom and security of the person and freedom of movement.
Justice Mande said the police had failed to demonstrate that the circumstances that would have allowed them to conduct a search without a warrant existed.
“I find that the first, second and fourth respondents violated the petitioner’s right to privacy as guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution when they entered his house, searched it and seized his items in contravention of the law,” she ruled.
The court further found that the seizure of Kinyagia’s property amounted to a violation of his right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution.
Psychological Distress
The judge said the events had also affected Kinyagia’s sense of safety and dignity, noting that a psychological evaluation report indicated that he had suffered significant psychological distress.
Kinyagia had told the court that he went into hiding after learning that people suspected to be police officers had gone to his home.
The judge said the fear he experienced was neither fanciful nor speculative, describing it as a rational response to the conduct of the state agents.
“When state agents act in a manner that causes an individual to abandon his home out of apprehension for his safety, the consequence is a constructive and unlawful restriction of his freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 39,” Justice Mande said.
She added that the constitution protects all people, including those who are frightened or vulnerable, from the coercive exercise of public power.
“The Constitution does not reserve its protection for the bold, the powerful, or the unafraid. It extends its full shelter to the vulnerable, the frightened, and all persons whose dignity is imperiled by the coercive force of public power,” the judge said.
Unlawful Investigative Process
The court also considered the subsequent attempt by investigators to have the seized electronic devices subjected to forensic examination.
Justice Mande said the violations were not incidental to the investigation but were foundational to it.
“The police did not first obtain lawful authority and then investigate. They invaded, searched, and seized, and only thereafter sought to clothe their conduct with the appearance of legality,” she said.
The judge ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) could not institute criminal proceedings against Kinyagia arising from the unconstitutional investigative process.
An order of prohibition was consequently issued barring the DPP from instituting any prosecution against him arising from the investigative process undertaken by the two authorities.
Sh5 Million in Damages
The court said the violations warranted compensation because they involved an unlawful intrusion into Kinyagia’s home, seizure of his property and disregard of constitutional safeguards.
“General damages are awarded in the sum of Sh5 million, payable jointly by the first and second respondents (DCI and IG),” Justice Mande ruled.
The court further ordered that the award would attract interest from the date of judgment until payment is made in full. The two authorities were also ordered to pay the costs of the petition.