A 2025 police operation at tech entrepreneur Ndiangui Kinyagia’s home has ended with the High Court ordering the State to pay him Sh5 million and stopping any prosecution arising from the investigation.
Justice Patricia Mande on Tuesday, September 22, 2026 found that investigators unlawfully entered Kinyagia’s home in Kinoo, Kiambu County, searched the premises and took away his property without demonstrating that they had grounds to conduct the search without a warrant.
The judge ruled that the actions violated Kinyagia’s constitutional rights to privacy and property, as well as his rights to dignity, security and freedom of movement.
The court further issued an order prohibiting the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from bringing criminal charges against Kinyagia arising from the investigative process conducted by the Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja.
The dispute dates back to June 21, 2025, when police officers went to Kinyagia’s residence while pursuing an investigation.
When they did not find him at home, the officers entered the house, searched it and seized several items.
Kinyagia later went into hiding after learning about the police visit, leaving his family worried after they were unable to establish where he was.
His mother eventually turned to the Law Society of Kenya for help, leading to the filing of habeas corpus proceedings to establish his whereabouts.
Kinyagia later emerged and explained to the court that he had gone into hiding because he feared for his safety.
The habeas corpus proceedings were eventually brought to an end, after which Kinyagia filed a separate constitutional petition challenging the search of his home, the seizure of his belongings and the manner in which the investigation had been conducted.
In determining the petition, Justice Mande said the authorities had not provided sufficient grounds to show that the police could lawfully search the home without a warrant.
“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 judge also held that taking Kinyagia’s belongings amounted to a breach of his constitutional right to property under Article 40.
The court further found that the conduct of the state agents had affected Kinyagia’s dignity and sense of security and amounted to an unlawful restriction of his freedom of movement.
Justice Mande considered a psychological evaluation report submitted in the case, which indicated that Kinyagia had experienced significant psychological distress following the incident.
Kinyagia had told the court that he became fearful after learning that people believed to be police officers had gone to his residence and therefore chose to stay away.
The judge found that his fear was a reasonable reaction to what had happened rather than an imagined or unsupported concern.
“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.
The judge said constitutional safeguards apply to everyone, including people who are vulnerable or frightened when confronted by state 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.
The court also examined what happened after the seizure of Kinyagia’s electronic devices, including the investigators’ attempt to have them subjected to forensic examination.
Justice Mande said the violations were at the heart of the investigation and were not separate or minor incidents.
“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 consequently barred the DPP from instituting criminal proceedings against Kinyagia based on the investigative process carried out by the two authorities.
An order of prohibition was issued stopping any prosecution arising from that process.
Justice Mande said the circumstances justified an award of damages, citing the unlawful entry into Kinyagia’s home, the seizure of his property and the failure to observe 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 Sh5 million award will accrue interest from the date of the judgment until it is settled in full.
The DCI and the Inspector General were also ordered to pay the costs of the constitutional petition.