1. The Applicant moved the court by way of Originating Motion dated 6th February 2025, which was amended on 13th June 2025. The Amended Originating Motion is premised on Sections 53 (1), 81 (1), 90 (1) and 92 (1) and (2) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, all other enabling provisions of the law, and pursuant to the order issued on 18th June 2025.
2. The application seeks for orders that: -
a) This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order in the nature of a declaration that the following motor vehicles are proceeds of crime or criminal activities and therefore liable for forfeiture to the Government of the Republic of Kenya in terms of sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009:
i) KBW872T-Toyota Fielder Chasis No. NZE121-3387623;
ii) KCP586S-Toyota Rumion Chasis No. NZE151-1099307;
iii) KCZ988R-Toyota Prado Chasis No. TRJ150-0030218;
iv) KCW236E-Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up Chasis No. JTBB71J70-4002285;
v) KBH208Q-Mitsubishi Fuso Chasis No. FK628K-540246; and
vi) KCC510B-Toyota Station Wagon Chasis No. ZRR70-0081800.
b) This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order forfeiting the following motor vehicles to the Government of the Republic of Kenya:
i) KBW872T-Toyota Fielder Chasis No. NZE121-3387623;
ii) KCP586S-Toyota Rumion Chasis No. NZE151-1099307;
iii) KCZ988R-Toyota Prado Chasis No. TRJ150-0030218;
iv) KCW236E-Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up Chasis No. JTBB71J70-4002285;
v) KBH208Q-Mitsubishi Fuso Chasis No. FK628K-540246; and
vi) KCC510B-Toyota Station Wagon Chasis No. ZRR70-0081800.
c) This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order directing the Director General, National Transport and Safety Authority to transfer the proprietary interest in the motor vehicles referred to in (a) and (b) above to the Assets Recovery Agency and issue registration certificates accordingly;
d) Costs of this suit; and
e) Any other order or relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to issue in the circumstances.
3. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Mohamed Hussein, which states that investigations commenced in July 2024 after information was received that on 6th June 2024 the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had been arrested while driving Motor Vehicle Registration No. KDJ 726Q - Honda Fit, on suspicion that they were proceeding to collect Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCP 586S - Toyota Rumion, believed to be transporting narcotic drugs from the 1st Respondent’s residence. Consequently, the Applicant opened Inquiry File No. 67 of 2024 pursuant to Sections 54(1) and (2) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).
4. Investigations established that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents led police officers to the 1st Respondent’s residence at Kiganjo, Makongeni, Thika, where a search of the premises and the Toyota Rumion recovered 38 bales of dry plant material packed in six sacks from the motor vehicle and an additional sack of suspected narcotic substances from the house. The recovered substances weighed 182.15 kilograms and 1.95 kilograms, respectively, and, upon analysis, were confirmed to be cannabis with a combined market value exceeding Kshs. 5.5 million.
5. The Applicant further stated that investigations revealed that the 1st Respondent is the registered owner of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBW 872T, while the 2nd Respondent owns Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCP 586S - Toyota Rumion as well as motor vehicles KCZ 988R - Toyota Prado, KCW 236E - Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up and KBH 208Q - Mitsubishi Fuso. According to the Applicant, the Respondents do not operate any legitimate businesses capable of generating sufficient income to acquire the said motor vehicles. Analysis of their bank accounts allegedly disclosed substantial cash deposits linked to persons suspected of engaging in narcotics trafficking, including one Ruth Atieno Ouma.
6. The Applicant also stated that the 3rd Respondent had previously been arrested on 31st January 2024 and charged before the Kahawa Law Courts in Kahawa MCCR/E036/2024 – Republic v Zachary Muli Kilonzo and Mohamed Juma Guyo for trafficking in narcotic substances. Further, the Applicant obtained preservation orders in Milimani HCMISC/E050/2024 – The Agency Director, Assets Recovery Agency v Cecilia Nyathira Muthoni & 3 others, which were issued on 17th October 2024 and published in the Kenya Gazette on 8th November 2024.
7. On the basis of those investigations, the Applicant maintained that the motor vehicles were proceeds of crime and prayed that they be declared forfeited to the Government of Kenya under Sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
8. In the Supporting Affidavit to the application, sworn on 13th June 2025, Mohamed Hussein, a police officer attached to the Assets Recovery Agency, deposed that the 1st Respondent claimed to be a poultry farmer who also operated two bars. He stated that on 7th June 2023, she purchased a Toyota Fielder for Kshs. 700,000, registered in her name. He further averred that the sale documents and the seller’s details were available, and that Kshs. 620,000 of the purchase price was paid through her Equity Bank account, with the balance of Kshs. 80,000 settled in cash.
9. The deponent further averred that an analysis of the 1st Respondent’s financial records disclosed suspicious transactions. He stated that her NCBA Bank Account No. 2383020016, opened in September 2020, received a credit of Kshs. 1,241.78, which cleared the negative balance, after which the account remained dormant.
10. He deposed that the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 01103278568700, opened on 3rd March 2017 at the Thika Branch, initially received a cash deposit of Kshs. 500 via M-Pesa and a PesaLink transfer of Kshs. 40,000. He further stated that subsequent deposits totalling Kshs. 510,880 comprised cash deposits made by the 1st Respondent through the bank’s automated teller machines. According to the deponent, apart from transfers of Kshs. 25,000 and Kshs. 117,000 to the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 01116278568700, withdrawals totalling Kshs. 290,000 were made in cash, and the account became dormant from 11th October 2019.
11. The deponent further stated that the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 0119227858700, opened in October 2021 at the Garissa Branch, predominantly received cash deposits from her mobile number 0725816032, despite being registered as a business account, except for deposits originating from the phone numbers 254113418136, 254721134216 and 254729234824. He further averred that withdrawals were largely made in cash through the bank’s automated teller machines, except for payments made through internet banking on 16th May 2021. He added that the last cash deposit of Kshs. 1,770 was made on 23rd July 2024, after which the account remained dormant.
12. The deponent stated that although the 1st Respondent’s Equity Bank Account No. 0340190743168, opened in January 2014, had initially received deposits from her employment income and tea factory earnings, it began receiving multiple deposits ranging from Kshs. 60 to Kshs. 40,000 from various individuals in 2022. He further stated that the account occasionally benefited from bank loans ranging from Kshs. 20,000 to Kshs. 100,000. He averred that the account facilitated the purchase of the motor vehicle in June 2023 after Kshs. 510,000 had been transferred from her M-Pesa account shortly before Kshs. 620,000 was remitted towards the purchase price. According to the deponent, the deposited funds were first applied to offset an overdraft, and the balance was then transferred to pay for the vehicle.
13. The deponent further deposed that an examination of the 1st Respondent’s M-Pesa Wallet Account No. 0725816032, which had been operational since April 2017, revealed extensive use of Fuliza overdraft facilities. He stated that the account primarily received funds from Mr. Noel Lukose Ahono and Ms. Angela Marashe Kimathi, whom the 1st Respondent identified as her distributors. He alleged that the funds were subsequently transferred to other persons, channelled into her bank accounts, and ultimately used to acquire the motor vehicle. He further averred that between March and June 2023, the 1st Respondent transferred Kshs. 796,000 to the 3rd Respondent via the phone numbers 0724986957 and 0726177781, Kshs. 4,600,630 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, and Kshs. 1,335,000 to Ms. Sofia Adan. He maintained that the source of these funds was traced to Mr. Noel Lukose Ahono and Ms. Angela Marashe Kimathi.
14. Regarding the 2nd Respondent, Roba Hassan Boru Abdinur, the deponent stated that he was the registered owner of the motor vehicles KCZ 988R, KCW 236E, KCL 802S and KBH 208Q. He averred that an examination of the 2nd Respondent’s financial records revealed a pattern of unexplained wealth.
15. The deponent stated that the 2nd Respondent’s NCBA Bank Account No. 3631520051 received a loan disbursement of Kshs. 2,446,161.17 on 18th September 2020. He further stated that Kshs. 148,954 was used to transfer motor vehicle KCW 597H, and that Kshs. 146,945 and Kshs. 166,990 were paid towards the transfer of motor vehicle KCW 236E, although the latter payment of Kshs. 166,990 was reversed on 12th March 2021. He alleged that the loan proceeds were not fully utilised for the acquisition of the two motor vehicles and that a sum of Kshs. 1,712,682.08 was repaid within a relatively short period on 19th March 2021.
16. The deponent further alleged that after the account became dormant, it later received unexplained cash deposits, M-Pesa transfers totalling Kshs. 1,933,720, and PesaLink transfers totalling Kshs. 176,000, from the 2nd Respondent's other bank accounts.
17. He further deposed that although the 2nd Respondent’s Equity Bank Account No. 0840179854859 had been opened in 2014, it remained dormant until 2020, when it allegedly received transfers totalling Kshs. 13,500,000 from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, whom he described as a convicted drug trafficker. He alleged that the transfers were deliberately structured below the Kshs. 1,000,000 reporting threshold and that the funds were commingled with other monies before being used to purchase the motor vehicle KCZ 988R Toyota Prado. He further stated that the account also transferred Kshs. 70,000 to the 3rd Respondent and Kshs. 210,000 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry.
18. The deponent further averred that the 2nd Respondent’s M-Pesa Account No. 0740496868 received Kshs. 1,111,000 from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, which he alleged was used to repay loans, make M-Shwari deposits and transfer funds to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry. He further stated that the 2nd Respondent’s other M-Pesa Account No. 0793697648 received Kshs. 6,000 from the 3rd Respondent and subsequently transferred Kshs. 342,200 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry.
19. The deponent stated that during a recorded interview, the 2nd Respondent attributed his wealth to income from a retail shop, watermelon farming and motor vehicle hire services. However, he contended that these explanations were inconsistent with the financial records and lacked documentary support. He further alleged that the 2nd Respondent failed to explain the substantial transfers received from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma or the discrepancies in payments made for his motor vehicles.
20. Regarding the 3rd Respondent, Mohammed Juma Guyo, the deponent stated that he was the registered owner of the motor vehicle with registration number KCC 510B, a Toyota Voxy, and that he operated two M-Pesa accounts, namely account numbers 0724986957 and 0726177781.
21. The deponent averred that the 3rd Respondent’s financial records revealed extensive transfers. He alleged that M-Pesa Account No. 0726177781 received Kshs. 346,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 190,000 from the 2nd Respondent. He further stated that the account recorded 124 transactions with Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, through which Kshs. 1,562,850 was received and Kshs. 487,730 was transferred. Additionally, he stated that the account recorded 94 transactions involving Ms. Sofia Adan, ranging from Kshs. 150 to Kshs. 250,000.
22. The deponent further stated that the 3rd Respondent’s second M-Pesa Account No. 0724986957 likewise received Kshs. 450,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 6,000 from the 2nd Respondent. He further averred that the account recorded 71 transactions with Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, involving amounts ranging from Kshs. 1,000 to Kshs. 250,000, through which Kshs. 1,978,900 was received and Kshs. 1,393,600 was transferred. He also stated that the account recorded 115 transactions with Ms. Sofia Adan, involving amounts ranging from Kshs. 100 to Kshs. 97,000, through which Kshs. 321,950 was transferred and Kshs. 650,250 was received. He added that the account transferred Kshs. 39,500 to Mr. Daniel Shamala Shitagwa as alleged payments for the hire of motor vehicles, including a Honda Fit.
23. The deponent further stated that during his interview, the 3rd Respondent claimed to be a taxi driver and a former goat trader but failed to provide documentary evidence to support those sources of income. He further alleged that the 3rd Respondent was unable to explain the source of funds used to purchase the motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B, and that his financial records did not disclose any transaction with the alleged vendor of the vehicle.
24. The deponent concluded that the 1st Respondent’s explanation that she purchased her motor vehicle using business savings and bank loans was false, maintaining that the funds originated from her M-Pesa account after she received money from Mr. Noel Ahono and Ms. Angela Kimathi, before the funds were channelled to the 3rd Respondent and his associates.
25. He further concluded that the 2nd Respondent’s assertion that his assets were acquired from proceeds of his retail business and watermelon farming was unsubstantiated. He maintained that the financial records demonstrated a direct link between the 2nd Respondent and Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, and that funds received from her were used to acquire at least one motor vehicle and to make payments to the 3rd Respondent and his associates.
26. The deponent also contended that the 3rd Respondent’s claim to have earned his income as a taxi driver and former goat trader remained unverified. He asserted that the financial records placed the 3rd Respondent at the centre of a network of financial transactions involving the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their associates, thereby rendering the source of his wealth highly suspect.
27. The deponent further stated that all three Respondents had either failed to file tax returns or had declared minimal tax liabilities, which, in his view, was inconsistent with the substantial financial transactions recorded in their respective accounts.
28. Finally, the deponent stated that the Applicant instituted preservation proceedings in October 2024 to prevent the disposal of the subject motor vehicles and that the resultant preservation orders were subsequently published in the Kenya Gazette.
RESPONSES
29. The 1st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit, sworn on 29th April 2025, opposing the application. She deposed that the Applicant had failed to present any firm or cogent evidence showing that her motor vehicle constituted proceeds of crime or had been used in the commission of any offence. She stated that the application was based on mere suspicion, which was insufficient to justify forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA). She maintained that, as a civil forfeiture matter, the burden rested on the Applicant to prove its allegations on a balance of probabilities through credible evidence rather than speculation.
30. The 1st Respondent denied any involvement in the alleged possession, trafficking, handling, or association with narcotic drugs, and further denied any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents beyond what had been alleged. The Applicant failed to establish any nexus between her, the other Respondents, and the alleged narcotic substances.
31. The 1st Respondent deposed that she was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle registered under number KBW 872T - a Toyota Fielder, which had been searched by the police without any narcotic drugs or other incriminating items being recovered. She relied on the Certificate of Entry and the Search Certificate dated 7th June 2024 to demonstrate that the vehicle was cleared during the search. She further maintained that there was no evidence linking the vehicle to any unlawful or criminal activity, and that the documentation relating to the vehicle established its legitimacy and regulatory compliance.
32. The 1st Respondent further stated that the funds reflected in her M-Pesa statements, totalling Kshs. 796,000, were proceeds of her legitimate business operations, namely Philsteph Bar and Mukuyu-ini Bar, both duly registered and licensed. She annexed valid liquor licences and asserted that the M-Pesa transactions were consistent with the sale of goods and services in the ordinary course of business. She denied any connection to the loan facilities, transactions, or payments reflected in the 2nd Respondent’s NCBA account, and disclaimed any association with the referenced loan disbursements or motor vehicles.
33. The 1st Respondent also stated that she had never previously been arrested, charged, or investigated for any narcotics-related offence. She emphasized that the Applicant had not produced any direct or circumstantial evidence linking her to the alleged criminal enterprise. She argued that there was no evidence of conspiracy, participation in drug trafficking, or any nexus between her and the narcotic substances allegedly recovered.
34. Finally, the 1st Respondent urged the court to find that the Applicant’s allegations were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of meeting the statutory threshold for forfeiture. She maintained that the Applicant had failed to prove that the motor vehicle or the funds in question were proceeds of crime or intended for use in criminal activity and prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.
35. The 2nd Respondent in his Replying Affidavit dated 6th May 2025 denied that the four motor vehicles registered in his name were proceeds of crime. He maintained that the vehicles were lawfully acquired through legitimate business ventures, including transportation, logistics, farming, and retail trade, with additional financial support from his parents.
36. He deposed that after working in his parents’ business, he established a gas supply business and later, together with his wife, operated a wholesale and retail textile shop in Eastleigh. He explained that each of the motor vehicles was acquired using legitimate income and bank financing. He stated that motor vehicle KCL 802S was purchased through an NCBA Bank loan, used for transporting farm produce and election logistics, and later sold to finance the purchase of KCP 586S. He further averred that the Mitsubishi lorry - KBH 208Q was purchased using proceeds from his watermelon farming and retail business, while the Toyota Land Cruiser - KCW 236E and Toyota Prado - KCZ 988R were acquired through asset financing from NCBA Bank, with repayments made from income earned through transport contracts with organizations such as Concern Worldwide, the Red Cross, and Action Against Hunger, as well as proceeds from his other business activities.
37. Regarding the events leading to the investigations, the 2nd Respondent stated that he was arrested on 5th June 2024, together with the 3rd Respondent, in Eastleigh. He was surprised to learn that his motor vehicle, KCP 586S, had been found at the 1st Respondent’s residence, where suspected cannabis was recovered. He explained that he had lent the vehicle to a person introduced by his friend, Mohammed Juma, based on mutual trust, and had no knowledge that it would be used in any unlawful activity.
38. The 2nd Respondent maintained that he had never been charged with or investigated for any criminal offence and stated that the Applicant had failed to establish any nexus between him, his motor vehicles, and the alleged criminal conduct. That the vehicles were lawfully acquired through verifiable business income and financial support from his parents and were therefore not proceeds of crime. Invoking Article 40 of the Constitution, he deposed that forfeiture would unjustifiably deprive him of his property and livelihood. He accordingly urged the court to dismiss the application with costs for lack of merit.
39. The 3rd Respondent opposed the application by his Replying Affidavit, sworn on 28th April 2025, in which he asserted that he was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle KCC 510B - Toyota Station Wagon, which he purchased with proceeds from his legitimate livestock, meat distribution, and brokerage businesses. He stated that although he was facing criminal charges for narcotics trafficking before the Kahawa Law Courts, he had pleaded not guilty and remained presumed innocent until proven guilty. He further contended that the deponent of the Applicant's supporting affidavit had not participated in the investigations and therefore lacked personal knowledge of the facts.
40. The 3rd Respondent denied possessing or trafficking narcotic drugs and maintained that no narcotics were recovered from his person, motor vehicle, or residence. He challenged the Applicant to prove its allegations and argued that the Applicant's account of his arrest and the alleged recovery of narcotics was inconsistent with the statements of the investigating police officers, none of whom stated that he led them to the 1st Respondent's residence or that he had been tracked from Thika to Nairobi.
41. He explained that the bank and M-Pesa transactions relied upon by the Applicant stemmed from his lawful businesses in livestock trading, meat distribution, and brokerage in grains, rice, and sugar. He further deposed that he jointly operated interior design and furniture resale businesses with his wife, Safia Yusuf Adan. He described his business relationship with the 2nd Respondent as having developed through livestock and cereal brokerage, while his association with the 1st Respondent arose through his wife and later expanded into livestock and sugar brokerage ventures.
42. The 3rd Respondent stated that although he received money from both the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the payments were for legitimate business transactions only. He explained that funds from the 1st Respondent were payments for livestock and merchandise supplied to clients she sourced, while funds from the 2nd Respondent were for livestock and brokerage dealings. He denied any association with known narcotics traffickers or with the individuals named Noel Lukose Ahono and Angela Marashe Kimathi.
43. He further explained that funds remitted by Halima Mohamed Henry were payments for livestock and brokerage supplies, and that she had been introduced to him by the 1st Respondent. He also detailed his livestock sourcing from licensed dealers in Kitui, Narok, Kajiado, and Moyale, and produced livestock movement licences to support his lawful business activities.
44. The 3rd Respondent further deposed that DCI officers had raided his residence in February 2024 and confiscated documents that would have substantiated his legitimate businesses and the acquisition of his motor vehicle. He maintained that the statements of the 1st and 2nd Respondents concerning the recovery of narcotics excluded him from the alleged chain of events. Consequently, he stated that the Applicant had failed to establish any nexus between him, his motor vehicle, and the alleged proceeds of crime, and urged the court to dismiss the application for preservation and forfeiture orders.
45. The 3rd Respondent filed a Further Replying Affidavit sworn on 8th October 2025 opposing the Amended Originating Motion dated 13th June 2025. He adopted his earlier statement dated 20th January 2025 annexed as MH-29, maintaining that it accurately set out his personal background and the legitimate business activities through which he acquired motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B - Toyota Voxy.
46. He acknowledged that he was facing two pending narcotics trafficking cases before the Kahawa Law Courts, but emphasised that he had pleaded not guilty and remained presumed innocent until proven guilty. He pointed out that he had never been convicted of any offence and that the Applicant had not alleged any association between him and any convicted persons. He further contended that the deponent of the Applicant's affidavit had not personally investigated his case, having been seconded to the Assets Recovery Agency rather than serving as a field investigator with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.
47. The 3rd Respondent reiterated that no narcotic drugs were recovered from his person, residence, or motor vehicle, and maintained that his Toyota Voxy was lawfully purchased with proceeds from his livestock, meat distribution, and brokerage businesses. He deposed that the Applicant’s account of his arrest and the alleged recovery of narcotics was inconsistent with the statements recorded by the investigating police officers. He noted that the Applicant selectively relied on one pending criminal case while omitting another in which he was charged, despite the alleged drugs having been recovered from a different location with no connection to him.
48. He maintained that all bank and M-Pesa transactions attributed to him were for legitimate livestock, meat, grain, sugar, and brokerage businesses, as previously explained in his statement. He further explained that he jointly operated interior design and furniture resale businesses with his wife, Safia Yusuf Adan, and described his business relationships with the 1st and 2nd Respondents as arising from legitimate livestock, sugar, and brokerage transactions. He clarified that while he received payments from both Respondents for livestock and merchandise supplied, he never transferred money to either of them, except for soft loans from the 2nd Respondent during their business relationship. He also denied any association with known narcotics traffickers, including Noel Lukose Ahono and Angela Marashe Kimathi.
49. The 3rd Respondent further explained that the funds received from Halima Mohamed Henry were payments for livestock and brokerage transactions, and that she had been introduced to him by the 1st Respondent. He stated that he sourced livestock from licensed dealers in Kitui, Narok, Kajiado, and Moyale, and that he produced livestock movement permits and a reference letter to support the legitimacy of his business activities.
50. He also deposed that following his arrest on 31st January 2024, DCI officers searched his residence and confiscated numerous business documents that would have demonstrated the lawful acquisition of his vehicle and the legitimacy of his business operations. He argued that the Applicant had conducted no meaningful investigation into the ownership or acquisition of his motor vehicle and had failed to rebut the explanation contained in annexure MH-29. He maintained that there was no evidence linking him or his vehicle to narcotic drugs or proceeds of crime and that the statements of the 1st and 2nd Respondents excluded him from the alleged chain of criminal events.
51. Finally, the 3rd Respondent stated that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the legal threshold for preservation and forfeiture under the law. That forfeiture would unjustifiably deprive him of his principal means of transport for his livestock business and taxi operations, contrary to Article 40 of the Constitution, which protects the right to property. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the amended Originating Motion with costs.
52. In rebuttal, the Applicant filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 10th December 2025 by Benedict Kaulu, an Investigator working with and attached to the Assets Recovery Agency, who deposed that investigations into the M-Pesa accounts of Angela Marashe Kimathi and Noel Lukose Ahono, conducted pursuant to court warrants, revealed a pattern of cash deposits followed by transfers to the 1st and 3rd Respondents, as well as to Halima Mohamed Henry and Sofia Adan. Although the Agency repeatedly attempted to obtain statements from Angela Kimathi and Noel Ahono, they failed to respond to calls or comply with formal requisitions requiring their attendance.
53. Regarding the 1st Respondent, the investigator stated that the Agency recorded a statement from Joel Maina Kanuni, who confirmed that he sold a Toyota Fielder to her in July 2023 for Kshs. 700,000. He further deposed that shortly after the purchase, the 1st Respondent transferred Kshs. 150,000 from her M-Shwari account to the 3rd Respondent.
54. As concerns the 2nd Respondent, he deposed that Susan Wangui Kimotho, the alleged buyer and seller of vehicles involving the 2nd Respondent, declined to record a statement despite admitting she was a motor vehicle broker. Investigations further established that the 2nd Respondent purchased a Toyota Prado for Kshs. 4,900,000, partly financed through funds received from Ruth Atieno Ouma, and that the logbooks relied upon by the 2nd Respondent related to a period after the vehicle had already been acquired.
55. The investigator further challenged the authenticity of documents produced by the Respondents. While the livestock movement permits produced by the 1st Respondent were confirmed genuine, several permits relied upon by the 3rd Respondent were found to be fabricated, lacking official stamps, issued to third parties, or originating from foreign jurisd
[...truncated]
2. The application seeks for orders that: -
a) This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order in the nature of a declaration that the following motor vehicles are proceeds of crime or criminal activities and therefore liable for forfeiture to the Government of the Republic of Kenya in terms of sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009:
i) KBW872T-Toyota Fielder Chasis No. NZE121-3387623;
ii) KCP586S-Toyota Rumion Chasis No. NZE151-1099307;
iii) KCZ988R-Toyota Prado Chasis No. TRJ150-0030218;
iv) KCW236E-Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up Chasis No. JTBB71J70-4002285;
v) KBH208Q-Mitsubishi Fuso Chasis No. FK628K-540246; and
vi) KCC510B-Toyota Station Wagon Chasis No. ZRR70-0081800.
b) This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order forfeiting the following motor vehicles to the Government of the Republic of Kenya:
i) KBW872T-Toyota Fielder Chasis No. NZE121-3387623;
ii) KCP586S-Toyota Rumion Chasis No. NZE151-1099307;
iii) KCZ988R-Toyota Prado Chasis No. TRJ150-0030218;
iv) KCW236E-Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up Chasis No. JTBB71J70-4002285;
v) KBH208Q-Mitsubishi Fuso Chasis No. FK628K-540246; and
vi) KCC510B-Toyota Station Wagon Chasis No. ZRR70-0081800.
c) This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order directing the Director General, National Transport and Safety Authority to transfer the proprietary interest in the motor vehicles referred to in (a) and (b) above to the Assets Recovery Agency and issue registration certificates accordingly;
d) Costs of this suit; and
e) Any other order or relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to issue in the circumstances.
3. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Mohamed Hussein, which states that investigations commenced in July 2024 after information was received that on 6th June 2024 the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had been arrested while driving Motor Vehicle Registration No. KDJ 726Q - Honda Fit, on suspicion that they were proceeding to collect Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCP 586S - Toyota Rumion, believed to be transporting narcotic drugs from the 1st Respondent’s residence. Consequently, the Applicant opened Inquiry File No. 67 of 2024 pursuant to Sections 54(1) and (2) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).
4. Investigations established that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents led police officers to the 1st Respondent’s residence at Kiganjo, Makongeni, Thika, where a search of the premises and the Toyota Rumion recovered 38 bales of dry plant material packed in six sacks from the motor vehicle and an additional sack of suspected narcotic substances from the house. The recovered substances weighed 182.15 kilograms and 1.95 kilograms, respectively, and, upon analysis, were confirmed to be cannabis with a combined market value exceeding Kshs. 5.5 million.
5. The Applicant further stated that investigations revealed that the 1st Respondent is the registered owner of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBW 872T, while the 2nd Respondent owns Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCP 586S - Toyota Rumion as well as motor vehicles KCZ 988R - Toyota Prado, KCW 236E - Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up and KBH 208Q - Mitsubishi Fuso. According to the Applicant, the Respondents do not operate any legitimate businesses capable of generating sufficient income to acquire the said motor vehicles. Analysis of their bank accounts allegedly disclosed substantial cash deposits linked to persons suspected of engaging in narcotics trafficking, including one Ruth Atieno Ouma.
6. The Applicant also stated that the 3rd Respondent had previously been arrested on 31st January 2024 and charged before the Kahawa Law Courts in Kahawa MCCR/E036/2024 – Republic v Zachary Muli Kilonzo and Mohamed Juma Guyo for trafficking in narcotic substances. Further, the Applicant obtained preservation orders in Milimani HCMISC/E050/2024 – The Agency Director, Assets Recovery Agency v Cecilia Nyathira Muthoni & 3 others, which were issued on 17th October 2024 and published in the Kenya Gazette on 8th November 2024.
7. On the basis of those investigations, the Applicant maintained that the motor vehicles were proceeds of crime and prayed that they be declared forfeited to the Government of Kenya under Sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
8. In the Supporting Affidavit to the application, sworn on 13th June 2025, Mohamed Hussein, a police officer attached to the Assets Recovery Agency, deposed that the 1st Respondent claimed to be a poultry farmer who also operated two bars. He stated that on 7th June 2023, she purchased a Toyota Fielder for Kshs. 700,000, registered in her name. He further averred that the sale documents and the seller’s details were available, and that Kshs. 620,000 of the purchase price was paid through her Equity Bank account, with the balance of Kshs. 80,000 settled in cash.
9. The deponent further averred that an analysis of the 1st Respondent’s financial records disclosed suspicious transactions. He stated that her NCBA Bank Account No. 2383020016, opened in September 2020, received a credit of Kshs. 1,241.78, which cleared the negative balance, after which the account remained dormant.
10. He deposed that the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 01103278568700, opened on 3rd March 2017 at the Thika Branch, initially received a cash deposit of Kshs. 500 via M-Pesa and a PesaLink transfer of Kshs. 40,000. He further stated that subsequent deposits totalling Kshs. 510,880 comprised cash deposits made by the 1st Respondent through the bank’s automated teller machines. According to the deponent, apart from transfers of Kshs. 25,000 and Kshs. 117,000 to the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 01116278568700, withdrawals totalling Kshs. 290,000 were made in cash, and the account became dormant from 11th October 2019.
11. The deponent further stated that the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 0119227858700, opened in October 2021 at the Garissa Branch, predominantly received cash deposits from her mobile number 0725816032, despite being registered as a business account, except for deposits originating from the phone numbers 254113418136, 254721134216 and 254729234824. He further averred that withdrawals were largely made in cash through the bank’s automated teller machines, except for payments made through internet banking on 16th May 2021. He added that the last cash deposit of Kshs. 1,770 was made on 23rd July 2024, after which the account remained dormant.
12. The deponent stated that although the 1st Respondent’s Equity Bank Account No. 0340190743168, opened in January 2014, had initially received deposits from her employment income and tea factory earnings, it began receiving multiple deposits ranging from Kshs. 60 to Kshs. 40,000 from various individuals in 2022. He further stated that the account occasionally benefited from bank loans ranging from Kshs. 20,000 to Kshs. 100,000. He averred that the account facilitated the purchase of the motor vehicle in June 2023 after Kshs. 510,000 had been transferred from her M-Pesa account shortly before Kshs. 620,000 was remitted towards the purchase price. According to the deponent, the deposited funds were first applied to offset an overdraft, and the balance was then transferred to pay for the vehicle.
13. The deponent further deposed that an examination of the 1st Respondent’s M-Pesa Wallet Account No. 0725816032, which had been operational since April 2017, revealed extensive use of Fuliza overdraft facilities. He stated that the account primarily received funds from Mr. Noel Lukose Ahono and Ms. Angela Marashe Kimathi, whom the 1st Respondent identified as her distributors. He alleged that the funds were subsequently transferred to other persons, channelled into her bank accounts, and ultimately used to acquire the motor vehicle. He further averred that between March and June 2023, the 1st Respondent transferred Kshs. 796,000 to the 3rd Respondent via the phone numbers 0724986957 and 0726177781, Kshs. 4,600,630 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, and Kshs. 1,335,000 to Ms. Sofia Adan. He maintained that the source of these funds was traced to Mr. Noel Lukose Ahono and Ms. Angela Marashe Kimathi.
14. Regarding the 2nd Respondent, Roba Hassan Boru Abdinur, the deponent stated that he was the registered owner of the motor vehicles KCZ 988R, KCW 236E, KCL 802S and KBH 208Q. He averred that an examination of the 2nd Respondent’s financial records revealed a pattern of unexplained wealth.
15. The deponent stated that the 2nd Respondent’s NCBA Bank Account No. 3631520051 received a loan disbursement of Kshs. 2,446,161.17 on 18th September 2020. He further stated that Kshs. 148,954 was used to transfer motor vehicle KCW 597H, and that Kshs. 146,945 and Kshs. 166,990 were paid towards the transfer of motor vehicle KCW 236E, although the latter payment of Kshs. 166,990 was reversed on 12th March 2021. He alleged that the loan proceeds were not fully utilised for the acquisition of the two motor vehicles and that a sum of Kshs. 1,712,682.08 was repaid within a relatively short period on 19th March 2021.
16. The deponent further alleged that after the account became dormant, it later received unexplained cash deposits, M-Pesa transfers totalling Kshs. 1,933,720, and PesaLink transfers totalling Kshs. 176,000, from the 2nd Respondent's other bank accounts.
17. He further deposed that although the 2nd Respondent’s Equity Bank Account No. 0840179854859 had been opened in 2014, it remained dormant until 2020, when it allegedly received transfers totalling Kshs. 13,500,000 from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, whom he described as a convicted drug trafficker. He alleged that the transfers were deliberately structured below the Kshs. 1,000,000 reporting threshold and that the funds were commingled with other monies before being used to purchase the motor vehicle KCZ 988R Toyota Prado. He further stated that the account also transferred Kshs. 70,000 to the 3rd Respondent and Kshs. 210,000 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry.
18. The deponent further averred that the 2nd Respondent’s M-Pesa Account No. 0740496868 received Kshs. 1,111,000 from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, which he alleged was used to repay loans, make M-Shwari deposits and transfer funds to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry. He further stated that the 2nd Respondent’s other M-Pesa Account No. 0793697648 received Kshs. 6,000 from the 3rd Respondent and subsequently transferred Kshs. 342,200 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry.
19. The deponent stated that during a recorded interview, the 2nd Respondent attributed his wealth to income from a retail shop, watermelon farming and motor vehicle hire services. However, he contended that these explanations were inconsistent with the financial records and lacked documentary support. He further alleged that the 2nd Respondent failed to explain the substantial transfers received from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma or the discrepancies in payments made for his motor vehicles.
20. Regarding the 3rd Respondent, Mohammed Juma Guyo, the deponent stated that he was the registered owner of the motor vehicle with registration number KCC 510B, a Toyota Voxy, and that he operated two M-Pesa accounts, namely account numbers 0724986957 and 0726177781.
21. The deponent averred that the 3rd Respondent’s financial records revealed extensive transfers. He alleged that M-Pesa Account No. 0726177781 received Kshs. 346,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 190,000 from the 2nd Respondent. He further stated that the account recorded 124 transactions with Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, through which Kshs. 1,562,850 was received and Kshs. 487,730 was transferred. Additionally, he stated that the account recorded 94 transactions involving Ms. Sofia Adan, ranging from Kshs. 150 to Kshs. 250,000.
22. The deponent further stated that the 3rd Respondent’s second M-Pesa Account No. 0724986957 likewise received Kshs. 450,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 6,000 from the 2nd Respondent. He further averred that the account recorded 71 transactions with Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, involving amounts ranging from Kshs. 1,000 to Kshs. 250,000, through which Kshs. 1,978,900 was received and Kshs. 1,393,600 was transferred. He also stated that the account recorded 115 transactions with Ms. Sofia Adan, involving amounts ranging from Kshs. 100 to Kshs. 97,000, through which Kshs. 321,950 was transferred and Kshs. 650,250 was received. He added that the account transferred Kshs. 39,500 to Mr. Daniel Shamala Shitagwa as alleged payments for the hire of motor vehicles, including a Honda Fit.
23. The deponent further stated that during his interview, the 3rd Respondent claimed to be a taxi driver and a former goat trader but failed to provide documentary evidence to support those sources of income. He further alleged that the 3rd Respondent was unable to explain the source of funds used to purchase the motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B, and that his financial records did not disclose any transaction with the alleged vendor of the vehicle.
24. The deponent concluded that the 1st Respondent’s explanation that she purchased her motor vehicle using business savings and bank loans was false, maintaining that the funds originated from her M-Pesa account after she received money from Mr. Noel Ahono and Ms. Angela Kimathi, before the funds were channelled to the 3rd Respondent and his associates.
25. He further concluded that the 2nd Respondent’s assertion that his assets were acquired from proceeds of his retail business and watermelon farming was unsubstantiated. He maintained that the financial records demonstrated a direct link between the 2nd Respondent and Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, and that funds received from her were used to acquire at least one motor vehicle and to make payments to the 3rd Respondent and his associates.
26. The deponent also contended that the 3rd Respondent’s claim to have earned his income as a taxi driver and former goat trader remained unverified. He asserted that the financial records placed the 3rd Respondent at the centre of a network of financial transactions involving the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their associates, thereby rendering the source of his wealth highly suspect.
27. The deponent further stated that all three Respondents had either failed to file tax returns or had declared minimal tax liabilities, which, in his view, was inconsistent with the substantial financial transactions recorded in their respective accounts.
28. Finally, the deponent stated that the Applicant instituted preservation proceedings in October 2024 to prevent the disposal of the subject motor vehicles and that the resultant preservation orders were subsequently published in the Kenya Gazette.
RESPONSES
29. The 1st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit, sworn on 29th April 2025, opposing the application. She deposed that the Applicant had failed to present any firm or cogent evidence showing that her motor vehicle constituted proceeds of crime or had been used in the commission of any offence. She stated that the application was based on mere suspicion, which was insufficient to justify forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA). She maintained that, as a civil forfeiture matter, the burden rested on the Applicant to prove its allegations on a balance of probabilities through credible evidence rather than speculation.
30. The 1st Respondent denied any involvement in the alleged possession, trafficking, handling, or association with narcotic drugs, and further denied any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents beyond what had been alleged. The Applicant failed to establish any nexus between her, the other Respondents, and the alleged narcotic substances.
31. The 1st Respondent deposed that she was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle registered under number KBW 872T - a Toyota Fielder, which had been searched by the police without any narcotic drugs or other incriminating items being recovered. She relied on the Certificate of Entry and the Search Certificate dated 7th June 2024 to demonstrate that the vehicle was cleared during the search. She further maintained that there was no evidence linking the vehicle to any unlawful or criminal activity, and that the documentation relating to the vehicle established its legitimacy and regulatory compliance.
32. The 1st Respondent further stated that the funds reflected in her M-Pesa statements, totalling Kshs. 796,000, were proceeds of her legitimate business operations, namely Philsteph Bar and Mukuyu-ini Bar, both duly registered and licensed. She annexed valid liquor licences and asserted that the M-Pesa transactions were consistent with the sale of goods and services in the ordinary course of business. She denied any connection to the loan facilities, transactions, or payments reflected in the 2nd Respondent’s NCBA account, and disclaimed any association with the referenced loan disbursements or motor vehicles.
33. The 1st Respondent also stated that she had never previously been arrested, charged, or investigated for any narcotics-related offence. She emphasized that the Applicant had not produced any direct or circumstantial evidence linking her to the alleged criminal enterprise. She argued that there was no evidence of conspiracy, participation in drug trafficking, or any nexus between her and the narcotic substances allegedly recovered.
34. Finally, the 1st Respondent urged the court to find that the Applicant’s allegations were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of meeting the statutory threshold for forfeiture. She maintained that the Applicant had failed to prove that the motor vehicle or the funds in question were proceeds of crime or intended for use in criminal activity and prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.
35. The 2nd Respondent in his Replying Affidavit dated 6th May 2025 denied that the four motor vehicles registered in his name were proceeds of crime. He maintained that the vehicles were lawfully acquired through legitimate business ventures, including transportation, logistics, farming, and retail trade, with additional financial support from his parents.
36. He deposed that after working in his parents’ business, he established a gas supply business and later, together with his wife, operated a wholesale and retail textile shop in Eastleigh. He explained that each of the motor vehicles was acquired using legitimate income and bank financing. He stated that motor vehicle KCL 802S was purchased through an NCBA Bank loan, used for transporting farm produce and election logistics, and later sold to finance the purchase of KCP 586S. He further averred that the Mitsubishi lorry - KBH 208Q was purchased using proceeds from his watermelon farming and retail business, while the Toyota Land Cruiser - KCW 236E and Toyota Prado - KCZ 988R were acquired through asset financing from NCBA Bank, with repayments made from income earned through transport contracts with organizations such as Concern Worldwide, the Red Cross, and Action Against Hunger, as well as proceeds from his other business activities.
37. Regarding the events leading to the investigations, the 2nd Respondent stated that he was arrested on 5th June 2024, together with the 3rd Respondent, in Eastleigh. He was surprised to learn that his motor vehicle, KCP 586S, had been found at the 1st Respondent’s residence, where suspected cannabis was recovered. He explained that he had lent the vehicle to a person introduced by his friend, Mohammed Juma, based on mutual trust, and had no knowledge that it would be used in any unlawful activity.
38. The 2nd Respondent maintained that he had never been charged with or investigated for any criminal offence and stated that the Applicant had failed to establish any nexus between him, his motor vehicles, and the alleged criminal conduct. That the vehicles were lawfully acquired through verifiable business income and financial support from his parents and were therefore not proceeds of crime. Invoking Article 40 of the Constitution, he deposed that forfeiture would unjustifiably deprive him of his property and livelihood. He accordingly urged the court to dismiss the application with costs for lack of merit.
39. The 3rd Respondent opposed the application by his Replying Affidavit, sworn on 28th April 2025, in which he asserted that he was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle KCC 510B - Toyota Station Wagon, which he purchased with proceeds from his legitimate livestock, meat distribution, and brokerage businesses. He stated that although he was facing criminal charges for narcotics trafficking before the Kahawa Law Courts, he had pleaded not guilty and remained presumed innocent until proven guilty. He further contended that the deponent of the Applicant's supporting affidavit had not participated in the investigations and therefore lacked personal knowledge of the facts.
40. The 3rd Respondent denied possessing or trafficking narcotic drugs and maintained that no narcotics were recovered from his person, motor vehicle, or residence. He challenged the Applicant to prove its allegations and argued that the Applicant's account of his arrest and the alleged recovery of narcotics was inconsistent with the statements of the investigating police officers, none of whom stated that he led them to the 1st Respondent's residence or that he had been tracked from Thika to Nairobi.
41. He explained that the bank and M-Pesa transactions relied upon by the Applicant stemmed from his lawful businesses in livestock trading, meat distribution, and brokerage in grains, rice, and sugar. He further deposed that he jointly operated interior design and furniture resale businesses with his wife, Safia Yusuf Adan. He described his business relationship with the 2nd Respondent as having developed through livestock and cereal brokerage, while his association with the 1st Respondent arose through his wife and later expanded into livestock and sugar brokerage ventures.
42. The 3rd Respondent stated that although he received money from both the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the payments were for legitimate business transactions only. He explained that funds from the 1st Respondent were payments for livestock and merchandise supplied to clients she sourced, while funds from the 2nd Respondent were for livestock and brokerage dealings. He denied any association with known narcotics traffickers or with the individuals named Noel Lukose Ahono and Angela Marashe Kimathi.
43. He further explained that funds remitted by Halima Mohamed Henry were payments for livestock and brokerage supplies, and that she had been introduced to him by the 1st Respondent. He also detailed his livestock sourcing from licensed dealers in Kitui, Narok, Kajiado, and Moyale, and produced livestock movement licences to support his lawful business activities.
44. The 3rd Respondent further deposed that DCI officers had raided his residence in February 2024 and confiscated documents that would have substantiated his legitimate businesses and the acquisition of his motor vehicle. He maintained that the statements of the 1st and 2nd Respondents concerning the recovery of narcotics excluded him from the alleged chain of events. Consequently, he stated that the Applicant had failed to establish any nexus between him, his motor vehicle, and the alleged proceeds of crime, and urged the court to dismiss the application for preservation and forfeiture orders.
45. The 3rd Respondent filed a Further Replying Affidavit sworn on 8th October 2025 opposing the Amended Originating Motion dated 13th June 2025. He adopted his earlier statement dated 20th January 2025 annexed as MH-29, maintaining that it accurately set out his personal background and the legitimate business activities through which he acquired motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B - Toyota Voxy.
46. He acknowledged that he was facing two pending narcotics trafficking cases before the Kahawa Law Courts, but emphasised that he had pleaded not guilty and remained presumed innocent until proven guilty. He pointed out that he had never been convicted of any offence and that the Applicant had not alleged any association between him and any convicted persons. He further contended that the deponent of the Applicant's affidavit had not personally investigated his case, having been seconded to the Assets Recovery Agency rather than serving as a field investigator with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.
47. The 3rd Respondent reiterated that no narcotic drugs were recovered from his person, residence, or motor vehicle, and maintained that his Toyota Voxy was lawfully purchased with proceeds from his livestock, meat distribution, and brokerage businesses. He deposed that the Applicant’s account of his arrest and the alleged recovery of narcotics was inconsistent with the statements recorded by the investigating police officers. He noted that the Applicant selectively relied on one pending criminal case while omitting another in which he was charged, despite the alleged drugs having been recovered from a different location with no connection to him.
48. He maintained that all bank and M-Pesa transactions attributed to him were for legitimate livestock, meat, grain, sugar, and brokerage businesses, as previously explained in his statement. He further explained that he jointly operated interior design and furniture resale businesses with his wife, Safia Yusuf Adan, and described his business relationships with the 1st and 2nd Respondents as arising from legitimate livestock, sugar, and brokerage transactions. He clarified that while he received payments from both Respondents for livestock and merchandise supplied, he never transferred money to either of them, except for soft loans from the 2nd Respondent during their business relationship. He also denied any association with known narcotics traffickers, including Noel Lukose Ahono and Angela Marashe Kimathi.
49. The 3rd Respondent further explained that the funds received from Halima Mohamed Henry were payments for livestock and brokerage transactions, and that she had been introduced to him by the 1st Respondent. He stated that he sourced livestock from licensed dealers in Kitui, Narok, Kajiado, and Moyale, and that he produced livestock movement permits and a reference letter to support the legitimacy of his business activities.
50. He also deposed that following his arrest on 31st January 2024, DCI officers searched his residence and confiscated numerous business documents that would have demonstrated the lawful acquisition of his vehicle and the legitimacy of his business operations. He argued that the Applicant had conducted no meaningful investigation into the ownership or acquisition of his motor vehicle and had failed to rebut the explanation contained in annexure MH-29. He maintained that there was no evidence linking him or his vehicle to narcotic drugs or proceeds of crime and that the statements of the 1st and 2nd Respondents excluded him from the alleged chain of criminal events.
51. Finally, the 3rd Respondent stated that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the legal threshold for preservation and forfeiture under the law. That forfeiture would unjustifiably deprive him of his principal means of transport for his livestock business and taxi operations, contrary to Article 40 of the Constitution, which protects the right to property. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the amended Originating Motion with costs.
52. In rebuttal, the Applicant filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 10th December 2025 by Benedict Kaulu, an Investigator working with and attached to the Assets Recovery Agency, who deposed that investigations into the M-Pesa accounts of Angela Marashe Kimathi and Noel Lukose Ahono, conducted pursuant to court warrants, revealed a pattern of cash deposits followed by transfers to the 1st and 3rd Respondents, as well as to Halima Mohamed Henry and Sofia Adan. Although the Agency repeatedly attempted to obtain statements from Angela Kimathi and Noel Ahono, they failed to respond to calls or comply with formal requisitions requiring their attendance.
53. Regarding the 1st Respondent, the investigator stated that the Agency recorded a statement from Joel Maina Kanuni, who confirmed that he sold a Toyota Fielder to her in July 2023 for Kshs. 700,000. He further deposed that shortly after the purchase, the 1st Respondent transferred Kshs. 150,000 from her M-Shwari account to the 3rd Respondent.
54. As concerns the 2nd Respondent, he deposed that Susan Wangui Kimotho, the alleged buyer and seller of vehicles involving the 2nd Respondent, declined to record a statement despite admitting she was a motor vehicle broker. Investigations further established that the 2nd Respondent purchased a Toyota Prado for Kshs. 4,900,000, partly financed through funds received from Ruth Atieno Ouma, and that the logbooks relied upon by the 2nd Respondent related to a period after the vehicle had already been acquired.
55. The investigator further challenged the authenticity of documents produced by the Respondents. While the livestock movement permits produced by the 1st Respondent were confirmed genuine, several permits relied upon by the 3rd Respondent were found to be fabricated, lacking official stamps, issued to third parties, or originating from foreign jurisd
[...truncated]