By Eldoret Leo A high-profile legal battle is unfolding involving a Uasin Gishu-based recruitment agency, as its director moves to court to block the seizure of assets by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) over alleged fraud linked to overseas job placements.
Judy Jepchirchir, director of First Choice Recruitment and Consultancy Ltd, has strongly denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the forfeiture proceedings are not only unjustified but also influenced by competitors seeking to push her out of the market.
In court filings, Jepchirchir maintains that the case is less about accountability and more about commercial rivalry. She claims the application by ARA is designed to frustrate her business operations and unfairly benefit competing agencies within the sector.
The dispute traces back to a controversial recruitment drive tied to job opportunities in Qatar during the 2022 FIFA World Cup. At the time, hundreds of young Kenyans reportedly paid recruitment fees with the expectation of securing employment abroad. However, a significant number later raised complaints after failing to secure placements, triggering public outrage.
The issue quickly gained national attention, drawing scrutiny from the Senate and leaders within Uasin Gishu County. This prompted investigations into the agency’s operations and financial activities.
Following these investigations, ARA secured court orders to freeze several assets believed to be linked to the alleged scheme. The properties in question include high-end vehicles, an apartment in Athi River, and a multi-storey commercial building in Eldoret. According to ARA, these assets were acquired using funds obtained from job seekers under false pretences.
Investigators further allege that the funds were moved through a series of transactions and withdrawals before being used to acquire the properties now under dispute.
Jepchirchir, however, insists that her company is legally registered and licensed by the National Employment Authority. She maintains that all payments received were legitimate service fees and not fraudulent collections.
She further argues that disputes arising from failed placements should be treated as civil matters rather than criminal conduct, noting that some affected clients were issued partial refunds due to logistical challenges beyond the agency’s control.
ARA maintains that the case goes beyond contractual disagreements, describing it as a matter of public interest involving potential proceeds of crime.
The case is scheduled for hearing on May 24, where the court will determine whether the frozen assets will be permanently forfeited to the state or returned to the director.
Robert Mutasi