The High Court has awarded tech entrepreneur Ndiang’ui Kinyagia Sh5 million in damages after ruling that a police raid on his home in June 2025 was unconstitutional, while also barring the Director of Public Prosecutions from pursuing any criminal case against him arising from the investigation that followed.
Justice Patricia Mande Nyaundi delivered the judgment on Tuesday, September 22, finding that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Inspector-General of Police violated Kinyagia’s constitutional rights when officers entered his home in Kinoo, Kiambu County, on June 21, 2025, searched the premises and seized several of his belongings, including passports, laptops and mobile phones, without demonstrating that they had met the legal requirements for a warrantless search. The court found the officers’ conduct breached his rights to privacy, property, dignity, security of the person and freedom of movement.
“General damages are awarded in the sum of Sh5 million, payable jointly by the first and second respondents,” Justice Nyaundi ordered, referring to the Inspector-General of Police and the Director of Criminal Investigations, with the award to attract interest from the date of judgment until payment in full.
The judge rejected the police’s argument that their actions were shielded by their investigative mandate, finding they had failed to demonstrate why they could dispense with a search warrant in the circumstances.
The court further issued an order of prohibition barring the DPP from instituting any criminal proceedings against Kinyagia arising from the investigative process that the court had found to be constitutionally tainted, and directed the DCI and Inspector-General of Police to jointly meet the costs of the constitutional petition.
According to the judgment, the DCI had sought assistance from the Communications Authority of Kenya to analyse and preserve material linked to an online account before officers proceeded to Kinyagia’s home.
The officers remained at the premises for much of the day attempting to reach him and, after failing to get a response, forcibly entered the house, seized the items and left an inventory with the caretaker. Having learnt that police were looking for him and fearing for his safety, Kinyagia went into hiding rather than presenting himself immediately.
His absence the following day triggered weeks of public uproar and speculation over his whereabouts, prompting his family to seek help from the Law Society of Kenya. LSK raised concerns over claims that Kinyagia had been forcibly taken from his home by people suspected to be security officers travelling in Subaru vehicles, citing accounts from neighbours, and said the circumstances bore the hallmarks of an enforced disappearance.
A habeas corpus application followed before Kinyagia resurfaced at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi on July 3, 2025, thirteen days after he had first gone missing. His lawyer, Wahome Thuku, said at the time that Kinyagia had gone into hiding temporarily out of fear for his life after learning DCI officers were looking for him. Thuku said Kinyagia had reached out to a family member from an undisclosed location before agreeing to present himself once assured of his safety.
“Ndiang’ui has indicated that he is ready and willing to present himself to the DCI and to be presented before any court of law when his safety and security are guaranteed. We have therefore advised him to present himself before the High Court at Milimani Law Courts today,” Thuku said.
Police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga later confirmed that Kinyagia was linked to an X account that had posted a viral mock invitation to demonstrations marking the anniversary of the deadly anti-Finance Bill protests. The image, shared on June 19, featured Kenya’s coat of arms alongside an itinerary that included a march to State House and the swearing-in of a so-called transition council.
Tuesday’s ruling brings the constitutional petition to a close at the High Court level, with the court finding that the investigative process had fallen short of constitutional requirements.

