High Court Orders DCI to Return Laptops and Mobile Phones Siezed from Ndiangui Kinyagia

The High Court has ordered the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) to immediately return laptops and mobile phones seized from blogger and IT expert Ndiangui Kinyagia.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, the court declared that the DCI's continued holding of the devices lacked any legal basis and constituted an abuse of power. The judge emphasized that while investigators had initially obtained court permission to retain the gadgets for forensic examination, they failed to complete their work within the permitted timeframe or apply for an extension.

Justice Mugambi criticized the DCI for showing blatant disregard for the law, pointing out that investigative agencies must strictly adhere to timelines and court directives when dealing with a citizen's property and constitutional rights. He described the prolonged seizure as illegal and unjustified, warning that such actions erode the rule of law and undermine public trust in law enforcement.

The devices, including laptops and phones, were taken from Kinyagia's residence in Kinoo along Waiyaki Way during investigations related to his online publications. Kinyagia, who operates a blog focused on governance and public accountability, argued that retaining his tools of work violated his rights to property, privacy, and freedom of expression, severely impacting his ability to create digital content.

The DCI had contended that the items remained essential to an ongoing probe, but the court found this position unconvincing. Investigators provided no evidence of meaningful progress or valid reasons for not seeking further court guidance after the authorized period expired.

Justice Mugambi directed the immediate release of the laptops and phones to Kinyagia. However, he declined to fully resolve the broader petition at this point. The judge instructed all parties to submit additional affidavits and written arguments on the underlying constitutional questions, which include the boundaries of police authority in digital investigations and the safeguarding of fundamental rights in the digital era.

The case is scheduled for further mention on April 20, 2026. This decision underscores the need for law enforcement to respect legal limits when seizing personal property, potentially influencing future cases involving digital evidence and individual liberties.