Tribunal orders KRA to lift freeze on Sonko bank accounts

A legal battle over frozen bank accounts belonging to former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko has taken a fresh turn after a tax court ordered the lifting of restrictions, allowing him to access his funds while a dispute with the tax authority continues.

The Tax Appeals Tribunal has directed the Kenya Revenue Authority to remove agency notices that had frozen bank accounts linked to former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko, allowing him access to the funds while his tax appeal continues to be heard and decided. The ruling follows a consent agreement between both sides and builds on earlier interim orders that had already stopped enforcement action.

In the latest decision issued on Friday, the Tribunal ordered that the affected accounts be unfrozen, effectively ending the restrictions that had been placed through earlier enforcement measures. This means Sonko can now operate the accounts as the tax dispute remains pending before the Tribunal.

The case stems from agency notices issued by the Kenya Revenue Authority targeting several of Sonko’s bank accounts in an effort to recover what it considers disputed tax obligations. Sonko challenged the move before the Tax Appeals Tribunal, arguing that the tax claims had not been fully determined and should not be enforced at that stage.

The Tribunal had earlier issued temporary orders halting enforcement while the matter was being heard. Tribunal chair Eunice Njeri had ruled that “an order staying the enforcement of agency notices be and is hereby issued pending the hearing and determination of the application.”

The latest ruling now extends that position by fully lifting the agency notices on the affected accounts, ensuring that the earlier suspension is fully applied while the case continues.

Sonko also raised concerns about earlier orders issued in November 2025, saying some of his accounts were left out of the ruling, which led to partial enforcement of the freeze.

“That the Tribunal be pleased to correct any clerical and/or accidental errors in the said Order, including any erroneous or incomplete account numbers appearing therein,” he states in court documents.

He argued that banks were only acting strictly based on the wording of the Tribunal orders, which resulted in some accounts remaining frozen even after earlier directions were issued.

According to him, the omission led to uneven enforcement and needed correction so that all accounts were properly covered under the ruling.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal is still ongoing and the tax dispute has not been resolved. It maintained that enforcement actions remain suspended while the case is being heard.