By originating motion dated 19 th May 2025 brought under Section 55 of the Antic-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act and Order 37 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiff has sought inquiry and answer to the following; 1. Whether Kshs. 467,764,517.60 transacted through the bank and mobile money Mpesa accounts set out below constitute unexplained assets within the meaning of the provisions of Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No.3 of 2003;
Account no. Account holder Total deposits
01100017871500 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 50,398,428.00
1002195069 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 16,323,000.00
0722226389 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 27,760,908.00
0717999279 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 9,334,194.00
1440179887489 Stellah Nyaboke 2,062,665.30
1440180507475 Stellah Otwori 12,242,381.50
1440164969154 Stellah Otwori 88,088,547.86
147496-0004 Stellah Otwpri 13,150,000.00
0724584639 Stellah Otwori 14,221,858.00
1440272559689 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 33,090,148.39
1440278828192 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 17,543,228.08
Mpesa Till 763531 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 104,766,477.12
01148558833100 Festemagra Investment 78,782,681.65
2. Whether the properties listed herein below constitute unexplained assets within the meaning of the provisions of section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No. 3 of 2003.
Property details Registered owner Value
C.R 41556-9122/57 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 9,000,000.00
C.R 41557-9122/58 Felix Mecha Nyakundi inclusive above
Mombasa/Block X/105 Felix Mecha Nyakundi &
Stellah Nyaboke 19,000,000.00
Lamu Mainland/Block 1
(Bargoni)/795 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 250,000.00
Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba
Block3/47 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 450,000.00
LR 6845/1136- IR 203944
(Original no. 6845/12/273) Felix Mecha Nyakundi 35,000,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1851 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 500,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1072 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 360,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1095 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 360,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1259 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 370,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/30 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 370,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/491 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 400,000.00
Malindi/Chakama phase I/846 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 750,000.00
Mavueni B Settlement
Scheme/1000 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 2,600,000.00
Mavueni B Settlement
Scheme/2186 Stella Nyaboke Otwori not provided
Nairobi/Block105/13772 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 107,700,000.00
Nairobi/Block 105/13773 The Bantu Hotel & Resort
Nairobi/Block 105/13774 The Bantu Hotel & Resort
Nairobi/Block 105/13775 The Bantu Hotel & Resort.
3. Whether the motor vehicles listed herein below constitute unexplained assets within the meaning of the provisions of section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No. 3 of 2003;
Property Details Registered owner Value
KDG 086B Stella Nyaboke 6,600,000.00
KCW 500Y Stellah Nyaboke 2,500,000.00
KCG 098Y Stellah Nyaboke 2,799,999.88
4. Whether the sum of Kshs. 4,260,000.00 seized pursuant to a search conducted by the Commission in Miscellaneous Criminal Application Number No. E129 of 2024 constitute unexplained assets within the meaning of the provisions of section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No. 3 of 2003.
5. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to pay to the Government of Kenya the sum of Kshs. 467,764,517.60 together with interest at court rates thereon from the date of filing this suit until payment in full being the cumulative amount received in their bank and mobile money Mpesa accounts in the period of interest as set out in paragraph 1 hereinabove.
6. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to pay to the Government of the Republic of Kenya the sum of Kshs.176,380,000.00 being the cumulative value of all those landed properties set out in paragraph 2 hereinabove.
7. In the alternative to paragraph 6 above, whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to forfeit and surrender to the Government of the Republic of Kenya ownership of all those landed properties set out in paragraph 2 hereinabove.
8. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to pay to the Government of the Republic of Kenya Kshs. 11,899,999.88 being the cumulative value of all those motor vehicles listed in paragraph 3 hereinabove.
9. In the alternative to paragraph 8 above, whether this Honourable Court should order that motor vehicles listed in paragraph 3 hereinabove be sold by public auction and the proceeds paid and/or forfeited to the Government of the Republic of Kenya.
10. Whether the sum of Kshs. 4,260,000.00 seized pursuant to a search conducted by the Commission in Miscellaneous Criminal Application Number No. El 29 of 2024 as set out in paragraph 4 should be forfeited to the Government of the Republic of Kenya.
11. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable to meet the costs of this suit.
The plaintiff’s case
Charity Muniu, the plaintiff’s investigator swore an affidavit on 19 th May 2025 in support of the summons in which she confirmed that she was a member of the team that investigated matters raised in the suit against the defendants. She averred that the plaintiff investigated allegations of unexplained wealth, unethical conduct and bribery against the 1 st defendant who was at the material time a Principal Land Registrar, State Department of Lands and Physical Planning. According to her, the investigations established that between January 2013 and March 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the period of interest), the 1 st defendant exploited his official position of trust in the public service during his time in the ministry by involving himself in transactions that were in conflict with public interest.
The deponent added that the 1 st defendant is married to the 2 nd defendant and father to one Corazon Mariam Mecha (hereinafter referred to as ‘Çorazon’) and that information obtained from Business Registration Services revealed that the 3 rd defendant was registered as a private limited liability company on 23 rd February 2017 with the 1 st defendant and his daughter Corazon being the directors and shareholders with 400 shares each. She added that the 4 th defendant was registered as a private limited liability company on 19 th February 2015 with its directors and shareholders being the 2 nd defendant and Corazon with 500 shares each.
It was further deponed that on 19 th October 2006, the 1 st defendant was appointed by Public Service Commission to the position of Land Registrar III in the Ministry of Lands following which he worked in Nairobi, Kiambu, Thika, Kilifi, Chief Registrar’s office, National Titling, Baringo, Kirinyaga, Embu and Thika Registries with the latter being the current. In these tenures, he got promoted to Land Registrar II, Land Registrar I, Senior Land Registrar and Principal Land Registrar.
Charity stated further that, while stationed at Kilifi Land Registry, the 1 st defendant used his office to allocate public land to the 2 nd defendant, within Mavueni B Settlement and Chakama Phase I and II Schemes in Kilifi County while the 2 nd defendant was not among the verified and approved beneficiaries listed by the Land Adjudication & Settlement department within the Ministry of Lands. She added that allocation of settlement schemes is normally meant for deserving beneficiaries, usually based on land need and historical displacement or resettlement eligibility. She points out that despite having a direct personal interest in the outcome of the said allocation, the 1 st defendant did not recuse himself or make any disclosure to his superiors or the oversight body.
She added that the said allocation to the 2 nd defendant was not supported by any application or vetting documentation and that the policy governing settlement schemes clearly stipulates a maximum of one parcel per eligible household yet the 2 nd defendant was allocated nine plots viz; Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1851, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1072, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1095, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1259, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/30, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/491, Malindi/Chakama phase I/846, Mavueni B Settlement Scheme/1000 and Mavueni B Settlement Scheme/2186. In addition to these allocations, the 2 nd defendant is said to have acquired during the period of interetstes property known as LR 6845/2799 IR 200522 (Original no. 6845/146/8) valued at Kshs 35,000,000.00.
It was also averred that, during a search operation carried out on 7 th March 2024, a cumulative sum of Kshs 4,260,000.00 was seized from the 1 st defendant’s master bedroom, the 2 nd defendant’s motor vehicles registration numbers KCW 500Y and KCT 092M and the 3 rd defendant’s hotel. The plaintiff obtained copies of the 1 st defendant’s payslips for the period of interest whereupon analysis, he was found to have received a net total of Kshs. 5,398,438.75 in salaries and Kshs 2,292,860.00 in allowances.
It was alleged further that during the period of interest, the 1 st defendant acquired motor vehicles registration numbers KBZ 178P valued at Kshs 660,000.00), KMFL 390F valued at Kshs 100,000.00 and KCK 671L valued at Kshs 690,000.00) and KBY 303Z valued at Kshs 3,600,000.00 while the 2 nd defendant acquired motor vehicles registration numbers KDG 086B valued at Kshs 6,600,000.00, KCW 500Y valued at Kshs 2,500,000.00, KCG 098Y valued at Kshs 2,799,999.98, KCM 812S valued at Kshs 1,800,000.00 and KCL 014Q valued at Kshs 1,300,000.00.
The deponent added that they established that the 1 st defendant owned properties numbers; C.R 41556 - LR 9122/57 and C.R 41557 - LR 9122/58 both valued at Kshs 9,000,000.00, Mombasa/Block X/105 valued at Kshs 19,000,000.00, Lamu Mainland/Block1(Bargoni)/795 valued at Kshs 250,000.00, Central Kitutu/Mwabosire 1335 valued at Kshs 3,500,000.00, Central Kitutu/Mwamanwa/3782 valued at Kshs 1,900,000.00, West Kitutu/Bomatara/4330 and 4331 both valued at Kshs 6,600,000.00, West Kitutu/Bomatara/8636 valued at Kshs 11,000,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/110389 valued at Kshs 3,800,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/82440 valued at Kshs 10,000,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/87933 valued at Kshs 5,800,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/30755 valued at Kshs 7,000,000.00, Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block3/47 valued at 450,000.00, LR 6845/1136-IR 203944 (Original no. 6845/12/273) valued at Kshs 35,000,000.00, Nairobi/Block 136/350 and Nairobi/ Block 136/351 both valued at Kshs 23,000,000.00 and Nairobi Block 136/457 valued at Kshs 3,500,000.00, the latter being registered to John Angelo Kibet.
It was also averred that the 3 rd defendant acquired during the period of interest properties known as Nairobi/ Block 105/13772, Nairobi/Block 105/13773, Nairobi/ Block 105/13774 and Nairobi/Block 105/13775 all collectively valued at Kshs 107,700,000.00.
It is averred further that the plaintiff got access to the defendants’ bank and Mpesa accounts and documents from which it confirmed the following credits transactions during the period of interest;
• The 1 st defendant’s account number 01100017871500 held at the Cooperative Bank - Kshs 50,398,428.00;
• The 1 st defendant’s account number 1002195069 held at NCBA Bank- Kshs 16,323,000.00;
• The 1 st defendant’s Mpesa account number 0722226389- Kshs 27,760,908.00;
• The 1 st defendant’s Mpesa account number 0717999279- Kshs 9,334,194.00;
• The 2 nd defendant’s account number 1440179887489 held at Equity Bank- Kshs 2,062,665.30.
• The 2 nd defendant’s account number 1440180507475 held at Equity Bank- Kshs 12,242,381.50.
• The 2 nd defendant’s and Corazon’s account number 1440164969154 held at Equity Bank - Kshs 88,088,547.86;
• The 2 nd defendant’s account number 147496-0004 held at Equity Bank Investment Bank- Kshs 13,150,000.00;
• The 2 nd defendant’s Mpesa number 0724584639- Kshs 14,221,858.00;
• The 3 rd defendant’s account number 1440272559689 held at Equity Bank -Kshs 33,090,148.39;
• The 3 rd defendant’s account number 1440278828192 held at Equity Bank- Kshs 17,543,228.08;
• The 3 rd defendant’s Safaricom till number 763531- Kshs 104,766,477.12; and
• The 4 th defendant’s account number 01148558833100 held at the Cooperative Bank - Kshs 78,782,681.65.
The plaintiff obtained a statement from Ardhi SACCO in which the 1 st defendant is a member, indicating that as at March 2024, he held shares deposits of Kshs 922,000.00 and that between 2013 and 2024 he acquired loans of Kshs 5,084,000 which were all paid through check off.
It was averred further that, Public Service Commission furnished the plaintiff with the 1 st defendants declaration of incomes, assets and liabilities which information revealed that within the period of interest, the 1 st defendant declared income, assets and liabilities as follows;
• Year 31/10/2013 - income of Kshs 2,060,000.00, assets worth Kshs 2,712,000.00 and liabilities of Kshs 1,180,000.00;
• Year 31/10/2015 - income of Kshs 2,393,000.00, assets worth Kshs 8,194,898.00 and liabilities of Kshs 958,240.00;
• Year 31/10/2019 - income of Kshs 3,744,000.00, assets worth Kshs 6,310,000.00 and liabilities of Kshs 2,620,714.00;
• Year 31/10/2021- income of Kshs 980,780.00, assets worth Kshs 5,600,000.00 and liabilities of Kshs 536,654.00;
• Year 31/10/2023- income of Kshs 2,841,120.00, assets worth Kshs 8,880,850.00 and liabilities of Kshs 4,075,662.00; and
• Year 31/10/2023 for his wife- income of Kshs 480,000.00, assets worth Kshs 9,500,000 with no liabilities. of Kshs 1,180,000.00
The plaintiff’s investigator stated that for the period of interest, the 1 st defendant declared income from sale of crop produce in 2015 at Kshs 300,000.00, rental income in 2015 at Kshs 350,000.00, animal produce in 2023 at Kshs 140,000.00 and sale of mature trees in 2023 at Kshs zero. In addition, the 1 st defendant declared wife's income only in 2023 where the declaration included salary, two parcels of land and shares in the 3 rd defendant. Further, she noted that the 1 st defendant only declared five parcels of land and three vehicles in the list of queried assets which are West Kitutu/Bomatara/4331, IR 200522, Nairobi/Block 136/350, Nairobi/Block 136/35, Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block 3/47, KBZ 178P, KBY 303Z and KMFL390F.
The deponent added that upon the plaintiff getting tax information from Kenya Revenue Authority, it was established that the defendants were registered for income tax and VAT and had filed returns safe that the 1 st and 2 nd defendants had not filed any business returns or VAT filings.
The defendants were served with notice to explain the disproportion between their assets and their known legitimate sources of income pursuant Section 26 and 55(2) of Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (hereinafter referred to as ACEA’) as read with Section 13(2) (c) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act which had been determined at Kshs. 771,893,224.00 as follows;
• The 1 st defendant- Kshs 248,306,530.00;
• The 2 nd defendant- Kshs 185,605,452.00;
• The 3 rd defendant - Kshs 266,889,858.00; and
• The 4 th defendant- Kshs 78,782,681.00.
The deponent added that the defendants responded to the notices and upon analysis of the responses, the plaintiff made the following findings;
1 st defendant
• There was a claim that properties known as CR 41557- LR 9122/58 and CR 41556 LR 9122/57 were bought using facilities from the 4 th defendant which is owned by the 2 nd defendant and exchange of KBY 303Z yet there was no explanation what kind of business the 4 th defendant engaged in or the source of funds used to acquire the motor vehicle. There was also no sufficient explanation of some Kshs 1,000,000.00 which was paid in installments and the source of funds for payment of rent and rates amounting to Kshs 120,000.00.
• The financial statement supplied in support of acquisition of Mombasa/Block X/105 in 2023 was not sufficient. This was because the 1 st defendant’s explanation of income of Kshs 7,392,917.00 from farming, Kshs 2,348,287.00 from sale of mature trees and employment income of Kshs 1,482,830.00 were unsupported and the employment income he disclosed was gross salary while the net for the year was Kshs 671,413.60. Further analysis of documents showed that on 06/10/2023 an RTGS of Kshs 6,000,000 was made from the 4 th defendant’s bank account number 01148558833100 held at the Cooperative Bank to the vendor of the property, Eurosom Group Ltd., in payment of the purchase price. Charity added that this account is wholly used to collect rental income from apartments owned by the 1 st defendant and his associates and they did not explain how they acquired the properties. On the same day, the 1 st defendant did another RTGS of Kshs 4,000,000.00 from his account no. 01100017871500 held at the Cooperative Bank and the balance of Kshs 9,000,000.00 was paid through cash deposits by both the 1 st and 2 nd defendants to the account of the vendor on diverse dates. Based on this, the plaintiff concluded that the sources of funds amounting to Kshs 19,000,000 used to purchase the property was not satisfactorily explained.
• Lamu Mainland/BIock1 (Bargoni)/795 was explained to have been an allocation by the Government without any consideration but the plaintiff found the 1 st defendant was not qualified for the allocation because, having been a land registrar at the material time, he was not qualified to become a beneficiary of the allocation.
• The 1 st defendant explained that Central Kitutu/Mwabosire/11335 was acquired through inheritance from his father which was satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant explained that Central Kitutu/Mwamanwa/3782 was inherited from his father which was found satisfactory.
• For West Kitutu/ Bomatara/4330, the 1 st defendant in his explanation stated that the property in question was acquired through inheritance from his father but its green card indicated that acquired it on 18.3.2011 and transferred it to his father on 23.03.2011 who re-transferred it back to him on 20.04. 2023. It was thus the plaintiff’s finding that the property was acquired before the period of interest and it was found to have been satisfactorily explained.
• In respect of West Kitutu/Bomatara/4331, the 1 st defendant explained that the property was acquired in 2011 and the plaintiff was satisfied.
• West Kitutu/Bomatara/8636 was explained to have been acquired through inheritance which the plaintiff accepted.
• The 1 st defendant had explained that Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/82440, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/87933 and Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/30755 had already been sold to third parties following which they were removed from the list of queried assets.
• The 1 st defendant claimed that he bought Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block 3/47 before the investigation period and provided a sale agreement dated 21 st October 2009 but according to the green card obtained from land registry, he acquired the property on 26 th August 2014. The explanation tendered was therefore not satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant supplied a sale agreement for purchase of LR 6845/1136-IR 203944 (Original no. 6845/12/273) dated 17 th February 2010 which was outside the period of interest but documents obtained from Land registry indicated that registration of the Certificate of Title was done on 30/01/2019. In addition, on this plot sits a five-storey commercial building made up of 24 units and the 1 st defendant did not provide any supporting documentation and details with respect to the source of income for the developments. For this reason, the plaintiff was not satisfied with the explanation.
• Nairobi/Block 136/350 and Nairobi/Block 136/351 are the residential properties for the 1 st defendant and were bought in 2008 which is outside the period of interest and were developed using a loan from Ardhi Sacco. The plaintiff accepted this explanation.
• For Nairobi Block 136/457, the 1 st defendant explained that the said property does not belong to him which the plaintiff confirmed and accepted.
• The 1 st defendant claimed that purchase of Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/110389 was financed by a loan of 2,700,000.00 from Ardhi Sacco which explanation was found to be satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant explained that he purchased motor vehicle registration number KBZ 178P which was registered on 21 st July 2014 using employment allowances. Upon analyzing the bank statement, the allowances he referred to were received in months of November and December 2014, which was after the acquisition of the vehicle. It was however the plaintiff’s finding that the 1 st defendant was in a position to purchase it despite the few months discrepancy and the same was found to have been satisfactorily explained.
• For motor cycle registration number KMFL 390F, the 1 st defendant in his explanation stated that he purchased it at a cost of Kshs 100,000.00 using savings and the explanation as tendered was found satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant did not recollect owning motor vehicle registration number KCK 671L but during a search in his house, one of the items seized was a sale agreement listing him as the purchaser at a price of Kshs 690,000.00. The plaintiff could not ascertain whether the agreement was executed as the current owner of the vehicle is Peter Mungai and therefore the vehicle was removed from the list of queried assets.
• The 1 st defendant explained that he exchanged motor vehicle registration number KBY 303Z with land parcel number LR 9122/57 & 58 and although it was found to be unsatisfactorily explained it was removed from the list of queried assets because its value was taken up by acquisition of land parcel.
• Bank account number 01100017871500 was explained to be a primary account through which the 1 st defendant receives his salaries and allowances. The plaintiff averred that at the time of issuing the notice for deposits amounting Kshs 50,398,428.00 any salaries and allowances were already factored in and excluded where allowances amounting to Kshs 2,292,860 were excluded contrary to the 1 st defendant’s claim. The 1 st defendant had further explained that this account was also used for his trading activities in forest logging and farming and provided forest produce movement permit for transportation of forest produce on various dates between June and December 2015 and lease agreements. However, in relation to logging and farming business the plaintiff found that; the 1 st defendant did not declare any income other than his employment income, he did not provide supporting documentation with respect to logging and farming business and the financial statements attached by the 1 st defendant to support his claim were unsupported.
• The 1 st defendant claimed that the deposits of Kshs 16,323,000.00 in his NCBA Bank account number 1002195069 were income from trading activities but no documentation to support the activities were submitted neither was the income generated declared with Kenya Revenue Authority. The plaintiff therefore found the explanation unsatisfactory.
• For Mpesa Account number 0722226389, the 1 st defendant claimed that the deposits of Kshs 27,760,908.00 were income from trading activities and related parties but no documentation to support the activities was submitted neither was the income generated declared with Kenya Revenue Authority making the explanation unsatisfactory. The same applied for Mpesa Account 0717999279 which showed deposits of Kshs 9334,194.00.
• The plaintiff’s investigator averred further that no explanation was given with respect to the cash of Kshs 340,000.00 seized at the 1 st defendant's home and the same was found to have been unsatisfactorily explained.
The 2 nd defendant
• The 2 nd defendant explained that she was allocated properties known as Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1851, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/11072, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1095, Kilifi/Chakama phase Scheme/11259, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/30, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/491, Malindi/Chakama phase I/846 and Mavueni B settlement scheme/2186 by the government but the claim lacked substantiation as she did not provide any documentation to support applications and allocations processes. Further, having been a spouse to the 1 st defendant who was a Land Registrar at the material time, she was not qualified to become a beneficiary of the allocation.
• For Mavueni B settlement scheme/1000, the 2 nd defendant claimed that this parcel of land does not belong to her but its green card provided indicated that she acquired the property on 8.8.2013 and for this reason, the explanation was not satisfactory.
• The 2 nd defendant had explained that LR 6845/2799-IR 200522 (Original no. 6845/146/8) was acquired on 2 nd May 2012, which is outside the period of investigation by attaching a sale agreement and the plaintiff accepted the explanation.
• The 2 nd defendant explained that she acquired motor vehicle registration number KDG 086B using revenues for 2023 which was over 15 million and attached her financial statements for the period. However, according to the records obtained during investigations by the plaintiff, the vehicle was purchased in 2022 and paid through four cash deposits by herself and the 1 st defendant which made the explanation unsatisfactory.
• According to the 2 nd defendant’s explanation, motor vehicle registration number KCW 500Y was acquired in 2019 when her business was at the peak. She claimed that her revenue during this period was Kshs 15,345,350.00 but the plaintiff found that her financial statements for the year were unsupported. Details of the business she was referring to were also not provided. Further, the motor vehicle was purchased at a cost of Kshs 2,500,000.00 and according to the statement of the seller, the transaction for the vehicle was a trade in with motor vehicle registration number KCT 233U valued at Kshs 2,800,000 and she was paid the difference of Kshs 300,000. In view of this, the explanation was not satisfactory.
• The 2 nd defendant had in her explanation indicated that she had bought motor vehicle registration number KCG 098Y in 2019 when her business was at the peak. However, the plaintiff’s investigations established that the motor vehicle was purchased at a cost of Kshs 2,799,999.88 from Toyota Kenya in April 2016 and the 2 nd defendant did not provide the source of the funds used to purchase the motor vehicle. The explanation was not satisfactory.
• Motor vehicles registration numbers KCM 812S and KCL 014Q were bought on 29/08/2017 and 29/05/2017 respectively and were later disposed during the period of investigations. They were thus removed from her list of queried assets.
• The 2 nd defendant claimed that Kshs 2,062,665.30 found in her Equity Bank account number 1440179887489 was from trading activities by the 3 rd and 4 th defendants but she did not provide any details or documentation to support the claim making the explanation for the deposits unsatisfactory.
• For account number 1440180507475 held at Equity Bank, the 2 nd defendant claimed that the queried amount of Kshs 12,242,381.50 was from trading activities by 3 rd and 4 th defendants, insurance policies and treasury bills and bonds. However, the monies attributed to these were not set out neither did she provide details of the sources of income for the policies, treasury bills and bonds. She further claimed that she had contractual agreement with an entity know as Four by Four Solutions but no documents were provided detailing the kind of engagements she had with them and the financial implications. The explanation for the deposits in this account was thus found to be unsatisfactory.
• In respect to account number 1440164969154 held at Equity Bank, the 2 nd defendant claimed that the deposits of Kshs 88,088,547.86 were as a result of trading activities from the 3 rd defendant, farming, logging, supply of stones and catering services. She attached a few forest produce movement permits and lease agreements. However, crucial supporting documentation were not provided and the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory.
• The 2 nd defendant explained that treasury bills and bonds worth Kshs 13,150,000.00 in Equity Bank Investment Bank account number 147496-0004 were financed from trading activities from 3 rd defendant and logging and farming. However, returns filed with Kenya Revenue Authority indicate that the 3 rd defendant was operating at a loss while the farming income was not supported and therefore the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory.
• Kshs 14,221,858.00 was deposited to the 2 nd defendant’s Mpesa account number 0724584639. The 2 nd defendant claimed that Kshs 13,231,458.00 of the deposits were rental income but no details or documentation were provided in respect of the rent allegedly received. She also claimed that she deposited some of the cash collected from the 3 rd defendant’s hotel and also withdrew from her bank accounts and deposited to the said Mpesa account. There were no highlights or links with the bank statements and therefore the claim could not be substantiated. The explanation was found not satisfactory.
• For Kshs 130,000.00 seized from a car registration number KCW 500Y, the 2 nd defendant asserted that it was an emergency fund which had been collected from the 3 rd defendant’s hotel. However, she did not give details of the period for which this money had been accumulated and the plaintiff found the explanation not satisfactory.
3 rd defendant
• The 3 rd defendant through the 2 nd
[...truncated]
Account no. Account holder Total deposits
01100017871500 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 50,398,428.00
1002195069 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 16,323,000.00
0722226389 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 27,760,908.00
0717999279 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 9,334,194.00
1440179887489 Stellah Nyaboke 2,062,665.30
1440180507475 Stellah Otwori 12,242,381.50
1440164969154 Stellah Otwori 88,088,547.86
147496-0004 Stellah Otwpri 13,150,000.00
0724584639 Stellah Otwori 14,221,858.00
1440272559689 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 33,090,148.39
1440278828192 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 17,543,228.08
Mpesa Till 763531 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 104,766,477.12
01148558833100 Festemagra Investment 78,782,681.65
2. Whether the properties listed herein below constitute unexplained assets within the meaning of the provisions of section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No. 3 of 2003.
Property details Registered owner Value
C.R 41556-9122/57 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 9,000,000.00
C.R 41557-9122/58 Felix Mecha Nyakundi inclusive above
Mombasa/Block X/105 Felix Mecha Nyakundi &
Stellah Nyaboke 19,000,000.00
Lamu Mainland/Block 1
(Bargoni)/795 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 250,000.00
Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba
Block3/47 Felix Mecha Nyakundi 450,000.00
LR 6845/1136- IR 203944
(Original no. 6845/12/273) Felix Mecha Nyakundi 35,000,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1851 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 500,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1072 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 360,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1095 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 360,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/1259 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 370,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/30 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 370,000.00
Kilifi/Chakama phase II
Scheme/491 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 400,000.00
Malindi/Chakama phase I/846 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 750,000.00
Mavueni B Settlement
Scheme/1000 Stella Nyaboke Otwori 2,600,000.00
Mavueni B Settlement
Scheme/2186 Stella Nyaboke Otwori not provided
Nairobi/Block105/13772 The Bantu Hotel & Resort 107,700,000.00
Nairobi/Block 105/13773 The Bantu Hotel & Resort
Nairobi/Block 105/13774 The Bantu Hotel & Resort
Nairobi/Block 105/13775 The Bantu Hotel & Resort.
3. Whether the motor vehicles listed herein below constitute unexplained assets within the meaning of the provisions of section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No. 3 of 2003;
Property Details Registered owner Value
KDG 086B Stella Nyaboke 6,600,000.00
KCW 500Y Stellah Nyaboke 2,500,000.00
KCG 098Y Stellah Nyaboke 2,799,999.88
4. Whether the sum of Kshs. 4,260,000.00 seized pursuant to a search conducted by the Commission in Miscellaneous Criminal Application Number No. E129 of 2024 constitute unexplained assets within the meaning of the provisions of section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, No. 3 of 2003.
5. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to pay to the Government of Kenya the sum of Kshs. 467,764,517.60 together with interest at court rates thereon from the date of filing this suit until payment in full being the cumulative amount received in their bank and mobile money Mpesa accounts in the period of interest as set out in paragraph 1 hereinabove.
6. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to pay to the Government of the Republic of Kenya the sum of Kshs.176,380,000.00 being the cumulative value of all those landed properties set out in paragraph 2 hereinabove.
7. In the alternative to paragraph 6 above, whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to forfeit and surrender to the Government of the Republic of Kenya ownership of all those landed properties set out in paragraph 2 hereinabove.
8. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable Court to pay to the Government of the Republic of Kenya Kshs. 11,899,999.88 being the cumulative value of all those motor vehicles listed in paragraph 3 hereinabove.
9. In the alternative to paragraph 8 above, whether this Honourable Court should order that motor vehicles listed in paragraph 3 hereinabove be sold by public auction and the proceeds paid and/or forfeited to the Government of the Republic of Kenya.
10. Whether the sum of Kshs. 4,260,000.00 seized pursuant to a search conducted by the Commission in Miscellaneous Criminal Application Number No. El 29 of 2024 as set out in paragraph 4 should be forfeited to the Government of the Republic of Kenya.
11. Whether the defendants should be ordered by this Honourable to meet the costs of this suit.
The plaintiff’s case
Charity Muniu, the plaintiff’s investigator swore an affidavit on 19 th May 2025 in support of the summons in which she confirmed that she was a member of the team that investigated matters raised in the suit against the defendants. She averred that the plaintiff investigated allegations of unexplained wealth, unethical conduct and bribery against the 1 st defendant who was at the material time a Principal Land Registrar, State Department of Lands and Physical Planning. According to her, the investigations established that between January 2013 and March 2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the period of interest), the 1 st defendant exploited his official position of trust in the public service during his time in the ministry by involving himself in transactions that were in conflict with public interest.
The deponent added that the 1 st defendant is married to the 2 nd defendant and father to one Corazon Mariam Mecha (hereinafter referred to as ‘Çorazon’) and that information obtained from Business Registration Services revealed that the 3 rd defendant was registered as a private limited liability company on 23 rd February 2017 with the 1 st defendant and his daughter Corazon being the directors and shareholders with 400 shares each. She added that the 4 th defendant was registered as a private limited liability company on 19 th February 2015 with its directors and shareholders being the 2 nd defendant and Corazon with 500 shares each.
It was further deponed that on 19 th October 2006, the 1 st defendant was appointed by Public Service Commission to the position of Land Registrar III in the Ministry of Lands following which he worked in Nairobi, Kiambu, Thika, Kilifi, Chief Registrar’s office, National Titling, Baringo, Kirinyaga, Embu and Thika Registries with the latter being the current. In these tenures, he got promoted to Land Registrar II, Land Registrar I, Senior Land Registrar and Principal Land Registrar.
Charity stated further that, while stationed at Kilifi Land Registry, the 1 st defendant used his office to allocate public land to the 2 nd defendant, within Mavueni B Settlement and Chakama Phase I and II Schemes in Kilifi County while the 2 nd defendant was not among the verified and approved beneficiaries listed by the Land Adjudication & Settlement department within the Ministry of Lands. She added that allocation of settlement schemes is normally meant for deserving beneficiaries, usually based on land need and historical displacement or resettlement eligibility. She points out that despite having a direct personal interest in the outcome of the said allocation, the 1 st defendant did not recuse himself or make any disclosure to his superiors or the oversight body.
She added that the said allocation to the 2 nd defendant was not supported by any application or vetting documentation and that the policy governing settlement schemes clearly stipulates a maximum of one parcel per eligible household yet the 2 nd defendant was allocated nine plots viz; Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1851, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1072, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1095, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1259, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/30, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/491, Malindi/Chakama phase I/846, Mavueni B Settlement Scheme/1000 and Mavueni B Settlement Scheme/2186. In addition to these allocations, the 2 nd defendant is said to have acquired during the period of interetstes property known as LR 6845/2799 IR 200522 (Original no. 6845/146/8) valued at Kshs 35,000,000.00.
It was also averred that, during a search operation carried out on 7 th March 2024, a cumulative sum of Kshs 4,260,000.00 was seized from the 1 st defendant’s master bedroom, the 2 nd defendant’s motor vehicles registration numbers KCW 500Y and KCT 092M and the 3 rd defendant’s hotel. The plaintiff obtained copies of the 1 st defendant’s payslips for the period of interest whereupon analysis, he was found to have received a net total of Kshs. 5,398,438.75 in salaries and Kshs 2,292,860.00 in allowances.
It was alleged further that during the period of interest, the 1 st defendant acquired motor vehicles registration numbers KBZ 178P valued at Kshs 660,000.00), KMFL 390F valued at Kshs 100,000.00 and KCK 671L valued at Kshs 690,000.00) and KBY 303Z valued at Kshs 3,600,000.00 while the 2 nd defendant acquired motor vehicles registration numbers KDG 086B valued at Kshs 6,600,000.00, KCW 500Y valued at Kshs 2,500,000.00, KCG 098Y valued at Kshs 2,799,999.98, KCM 812S valued at Kshs 1,800,000.00 and KCL 014Q valued at Kshs 1,300,000.00.
The deponent added that they established that the 1 st defendant owned properties numbers; C.R 41556 - LR 9122/57 and C.R 41557 - LR 9122/58 both valued at Kshs 9,000,000.00, Mombasa/Block X/105 valued at Kshs 19,000,000.00, Lamu Mainland/Block1(Bargoni)/795 valued at Kshs 250,000.00, Central Kitutu/Mwabosire 1335 valued at Kshs 3,500,000.00, Central Kitutu/Mwamanwa/3782 valued at Kshs 1,900,000.00, West Kitutu/Bomatara/4330 and 4331 both valued at Kshs 6,600,000.00, West Kitutu/Bomatara/8636 valued at Kshs 11,000,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/110389 valued at Kshs 3,800,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/82440 valued at Kshs 10,000,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/87933 valued at Kshs 5,800,000.00, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block1/30755 valued at Kshs 7,000,000.00, Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block3/47 valued at 450,000.00, LR 6845/1136-IR 203944 (Original no. 6845/12/273) valued at Kshs 35,000,000.00, Nairobi/Block 136/350 and Nairobi/ Block 136/351 both valued at Kshs 23,000,000.00 and Nairobi Block 136/457 valued at Kshs 3,500,000.00, the latter being registered to John Angelo Kibet.
It was also averred that the 3 rd defendant acquired during the period of interest properties known as Nairobi/ Block 105/13772, Nairobi/Block 105/13773, Nairobi/ Block 105/13774 and Nairobi/Block 105/13775 all collectively valued at Kshs 107,700,000.00.
It is averred further that the plaintiff got access to the defendants’ bank and Mpesa accounts and documents from which it confirmed the following credits transactions during the period of interest;
• The 1 st defendant’s account number 01100017871500 held at the Cooperative Bank - Kshs 50,398,428.00;
• The 1 st defendant’s account number 1002195069 held at NCBA Bank- Kshs 16,323,000.00;
• The 1 st defendant’s Mpesa account number 0722226389- Kshs 27,760,908.00;
• The 1 st defendant’s Mpesa account number 0717999279- Kshs 9,334,194.00;
• The 2 nd defendant’s account number 1440179887489 held at Equity Bank- Kshs 2,062,665.30.
• The 2 nd defendant’s account number 1440180507475 held at Equity Bank- Kshs 12,242,381.50.
• The 2 nd defendant’s and Corazon’s account number 1440164969154 held at Equity Bank - Kshs 88,088,547.86;
• The 2 nd defendant’s account number 147496-0004 held at Equity Bank Investment Bank- Kshs 13,150,000.00;
• The 2 nd defendant’s Mpesa number 0724584639- Kshs 14,221,858.00;
• The 3 rd defendant’s account number 1440272559689 held at Equity Bank -Kshs 33,090,148.39;
• The 3 rd defendant’s account number 1440278828192 held at Equity Bank- Kshs 17,543,228.08;
• The 3 rd defendant’s Safaricom till number 763531- Kshs 104,766,477.12; and
• The 4 th defendant’s account number 01148558833100 held at the Cooperative Bank - Kshs 78,782,681.65.
The plaintiff obtained a statement from Ardhi SACCO in which the 1 st defendant is a member, indicating that as at March 2024, he held shares deposits of Kshs 922,000.00 and that between 2013 and 2024 he acquired loans of Kshs 5,084,000 which were all paid through check off.
It was averred further that, Public Service Commission furnished the plaintiff with the 1 st defendants declaration of incomes, assets and liabilities which information revealed that within the period of interest, the 1 st defendant declared income, assets and liabilities as follows;
• Year 31/10/2013 - income of Kshs 2,060,000.00, assets worth Kshs 2,712,000.00 and liabilities of Kshs 1,180,000.00;
• Year 31/10/2015 - income of Kshs 2,393,000.00, assets worth Kshs 8,194,898.00 and liabilities of Kshs 958,240.00;
• Year 31/10/2019 - income of Kshs 3,744,000.00, assets worth Kshs 6,310,000.00 and liabilities of Kshs 2,620,714.00;
• Year 31/10/2021- income of Kshs 980,780.00, assets worth Kshs 5,600,000.00 and liabilities of Kshs 536,654.00;
• Year 31/10/2023- income of Kshs 2,841,120.00, assets worth Kshs 8,880,850.00 and liabilities of Kshs 4,075,662.00; and
• Year 31/10/2023 for his wife- income of Kshs 480,000.00, assets worth Kshs 9,500,000 with no liabilities. of Kshs 1,180,000.00
The plaintiff’s investigator stated that for the period of interest, the 1 st defendant declared income from sale of crop produce in 2015 at Kshs 300,000.00, rental income in 2015 at Kshs 350,000.00, animal produce in 2023 at Kshs 140,000.00 and sale of mature trees in 2023 at Kshs zero. In addition, the 1 st defendant declared wife's income only in 2023 where the declaration included salary, two parcels of land and shares in the 3 rd defendant. Further, she noted that the 1 st defendant only declared five parcels of land and three vehicles in the list of queried assets which are West Kitutu/Bomatara/4331, IR 200522, Nairobi/Block 136/350, Nairobi/Block 136/35, Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block 3/47, KBZ 178P, KBY 303Z and KMFL390F.
The deponent added that upon the plaintiff getting tax information from Kenya Revenue Authority, it was established that the defendants were registered for income tax and VAT and had filed returns safe that the 1 st and 2 nd defendants had not filed any business returns or VAT filings.
The defendants were served with notice to explain the disproportion between their assets and their known legitimate sources of income pursuant Section 26 and 55(2) of Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (hereinafter referred to as ACEA’) as read with Section 13(2) (c) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act which had been determined at Kshs. 771,893,224.00 as follows;
• The 1 st defendant- Kshs 248,306,530.00;
• The 2 nd defendant- Kshs 185,605,452.00;
• The 3 rd defendant - Kshs 266,889,858.00; and
• The 4 th defendant- Kshs 78,782,681.00.
The deponent added that the defendants responded to the notices and upon analysis of the responses, the plaintiff made the following findings;
1 st defendant
• There was a claim that properties known as CR 41557- LR 9122/58 and CR 41556 LR 9122/57 were bought using facilities from the 4 th defendant which is owned by the 2 nd defendant and exchange of KBY 303Z yet there was no explanation what kind of business the 4 th defendant engaged in or the source of funds used to acquire the motor vehicle. There was also no sufficient explanation of some Kshs 1,000,000.00 which was paid in installments and the source of funds for payment of rent and rates amounting to Kshs 120,000.00.
• The financial statement supplied in support of acquisition of Mombasa/Block X/105 in 2023 was not sufficient. This was because the 1 st defendant’s explanation of income of Kshs 7,392,917.00 from farming, Kshs 2,348,287.00 from sale of mature trees and employment income of Kshs 1,482,830.00 were unsupported and the employment income he disclosed was gross salary while the net for the year was Kshs 671,413.60. Further analysis of documents showed that on 06/10/2023 an RTGS of Kshs 6,000,000 was made from the 4 th defendant’s bank account number 01148558833100 held at the Cooperative Bank to the vendor of the property, Eurosom Group Ltd., in payment of the purchase price. Charity added that this account is wholly used to collect rental income from apartments owned by the 1 st defendant and his associates and they did not explain how they acquired the properties. On the same day, the 1 st defendant did another RTGS of Kshs 4,000,000.00 from his account no. 01100017871500 held at the Cooperative Bank and the balance of Kshs 9,000,000.00 was paid through cash deposits by both the 1 st and 2 nd defendants to the account of the vendor on diverse dates. Based on this, the plaintiff concluded that the sources of funds amounting to Kshs 19,000,000 used to purchase the property was not satisfactorily explained.
• Lamu Mainland/BIock1 (Bargoni)/795 was explained to have been an allocation by the Government without any consideration but the plaintiff found the 1 st defendant was not qualified for the allocation because, having been a land registrar at the material time, he was not qualified to become a beneficiary of the allocation.
• The 1 st defendant explained that Central Kitutu/Mwabosire/11335 was acquired through inheritance from his father which was satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant explained that Central Kitutu/Mwamanwa/3782 was inherited from his father which was found satisfactory.
• For West Kitutu/ Bomatara/4330, the 1 st defendant in his explanation stated that the property in question was acquired through inheritance from his father but its green card indicated that acquired it on 18.3.2011 and transferred it to his father on 23.03.2011 who re-transferred it back to him on 20.04. 2023. It was thus the plaintiff’s finding that the property was acquired before the period of interest and it was found to have been satisfactorily explained.
• In respect of West Kitutu/Bomatara/4331, the 1 st defendant explained that the property was acquired in 2011 and the plaintiff was satisfied.
• West Kitutu/Bomatara/8636 was explained to have been acquired through inheritance which the plaintiff accepted.
• The 1 st defendant had explained that Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/82440, Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/87933 and Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/30755 had already been sold to third parties following which they were removed from the list of queried assets.
• The 1 st defendant claimed that he bought Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block 3/47 before the investigation period and provided a sale agreement dated 21 st October 2009 but according to the green card obtained from land registry, he acquired the property on 26 th August 2014. The explanation tendered was therefore not satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant supplied a sale agreement for purchase of LR 6845/1136-IR 203944 (Original no. 6845/12/273) dated 17 th February 2010 which was outside the period of interest but documents obtained from Land registry indicated that registration of the Certificate of Title was done on 30/01/2019. In addition, on this plot sits a five-storey commercial building made up of 24 units and the 1 st defendant did not provide any supporting documentation and details with respect to the source of income for the developments. For this reason, the plaintiff was not satisfied with the explanation.
• Nairobi/Block 136/350 and Nairobi/Block 136/351 are the residential properties for the 1 st defendant and were bought in 2008 which is outside the period of interest and were developed using a loan from Ardhi Sacco. The plaintiff accepted this explanation.
• For Nairobi Block 136/457, the 1 st defendant explained that the said property does not belong to him which the plaintiff confirmed and accepted.
• The 1 st defendant claimed that purchase of Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/110389 was financed by a loan of 2,700,000.00 from Ardhi Sacco which explanation was found to be satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant explained that he purchased motor vehicle registration number KBZ 178P which was registered on 21 st July 2014 using employment allowances. Upon analyzing the bank statement, the allowances he referred to were received in months of November and December 2014, which was after the acquisition of the vehicle. It was however the plaintiff’s finding that the 1 st defendant was in a position to purchase it despite the few months discrepancy and the same was found to have been satisfactorily explained.
• For motor cycle registration number KMFL 390F, the 1 st defendant in his explanation stated that he purchased it at a cost of Kshs 100,000.00 using savings and the explanation as tendered was found satisfactory.
• The 1 st defendant did not recollect owning motor vehicle registration number KCK 671L but during a search in his house, one of the items seized was a sale agreement listing him as the purchaser at a price of Kshs 690,000.00. The plaintiff could not ascertain whether the agreement was executed as the current owner of the vehicle is Peter Mungai and therefore the vehicle was removed from the list of queried assets.
• The 1 st defendant explained that he exchanged motor vehicle registration number KBY 303Z with land parcel number LR 9122/57 & 58 and although it was found to be unsatisfactorily explained it was removed from the list of queried assets because its value was taken up by acquisition of land parcel.
• Bank account number 01100017871500 was explained to be a primary account through which the 1 st defendant receives his salaries and allowances. The plaintiff averred that at the time of issuing the notice for deposits amounting Kshs 50,398,428.00 any salaries and allowances were already factored in and excluded where allowances amounting to Kshs 2,292,860 were excluded contrary to the 1 st defendant’s claim. The 1 st defendant had further explained that this account was also used for his trading activities in forest logging and farming and provided forest produce movement permit for transportation of forest produce on various dates between June and December 2015 and lease agreements. However, in relation to logging and farming business the plaintiff found that; the 1 st defendant did not declare any income other than his employment income, he did not provide supporting documentation with respect to logging and farming business and the financial statements attached by the 1 st defendant to support his claim were unsupported.
• The 1 st defendant claimed that the deposits of Kshs 16,323,000.00 in his NCBA Bank account number 1002195069 were income from trading activities but no documentation to support the activities were submitted neither was the income generated declared with Kenya Revenue Authority. The plaintiff therefore found the explanation unsatisfactory.
• For Mpesa Account number 0722226389, the 1 st defendant claimed that the deposits of Kshs 27,760,908.00 were income from trading activities and related parties but no documentation to support the activities was submitted neither was the income generated declared with Kenya Revenue Authority making the explanation unsatisfactory. The same applied for Mpesa Account 0717999279 which showed deposits of Kshs 9334,194.00.
• The plaintiff’s investigator averred further that no explanation was given with respect to the cash of Kshs 340,000.00 seized at the 1 st defendant's home and the same was found to have been unsatisfactorily explained.
The 2 nd defendant
• The 2 nd defendant explained that she was allocated properties known as Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1851, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/11072, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/1095, Kilifi/Chakama phase Scheme/11259, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/30, Kilifi/Chakama phase II Scheme/491, Malindi/Chakama phase I/846 and Mavueni B settlement scheme/2186 by the government but the claim lacked substantiation as she did not provide any documentation to support applications and allocations processes. Further, having been a spouse to the 1 st defendant who was a Land Registrar at the material time, she was not qualified to become a beneficiary of the allocation.
• For Mavueni B settlement scheme/1000, the 2 nd defendant claimed that this parcel of land does not belong to her but its green card provided indicated that she acquired the property on 8.8.2013 and for this reason, the explanation was not satisfactory.
• The 2 nd defendant had explained that LR 6845/2799-IR 200522 (Original no. 6845/146/8) was acquired on 2 nd May 2012, which is outside the period of investigation by attaching a sale agreement and the plaintiff accepted the explanation.
• The 2 nd defendant explained that she acquired motor vehicle registration number KDG 086B using revenues for 2023 which was over 15 million and attached her financial statements for the period. However, according to the records obtained during investigations by the plaintiff, the vehicle was purchased in 2022 and paid through four cash deposits by herself and the 1 st defendant which made the explanation unsatisfactory.
• According to the 2 nd defendant’s explanation, motor vehicle registration number KCW 500Y was acquired in 2019 when her business was at the peak. She claimed that her revenue during this period was Kshs 15,345,350.00 but the plaintiff found that her financial statements for the year were unsupported. Details of the business she was referring to were also not provided. Further, the motor vehicle was purchased at a cost of Kshs 2,500,000.00 and according to the statement of the seller, the transaction for the vehicle was a trade in with motor vehicle registration number KCT 233U valued at Kshs 2,800,000 and she was paid the difference of Kshs 300,000. In view of this, the explanation was not satisfactory.
• The 2 nd defendant had in her explanation indicated that she had bought motor vehicle registration number KCG 098Y in 2019 when her business was at the peak. However, the plaintiff’s investigations established that the motor vehicle was purchased at a cost of Kshs 2,799,999.88 from Toyota Kenya in April 2016 and the 2 nd defendant did not provide the source of the funds used to purchase the motor vehicle. The explanation was not satisfactory.
• Motor vehicles registration numbers KCM 812S and KCL 014Q were bought on 29/08/2017 and 29/05/2017 respectively and were later disposed during the period of investigations. They were thus removed from her list of queried assets.
• The 2 nd defendant claimed that Kshs 2,062,665.30 found in her Equity Bank account number 1440179887489 was from trading activities by the 3 rd and 4 th defendants but she did not provide any details or documentation to support the claim making the explanation for the deposits unsatisfactory.
• For account number 1440180507475 held at Equity Bank, the 2 nd defendant claimed that the queried amount of Kshs 12,242,381.50 was from trading activities by 3 rd and 4 th defendants, insurance policies and treasury bills and bonds. However, the monies attributed to these were not set out neither did she provide details of the sources of income for the policies, treasury bills and bonds. She further claimed that she had contractual agreement with an entity know as Four by Four Solutions but no documents were provided detailing the kind of engagements she had with them and the financial implications. The explanation for the deposits in this account was thus found to be unsatisfactory.
• In respect to account number 1440164969154 held at Equity Bank, the 2 nd defendant claimed that the deposits of Kshs 88,088,547.86 were as a result of trading activities from the 3 rd defendant, farming, logging, supply of stones and catering services. She attached a few forest produce movement permits and lease agreements. However, crucial supporting documentation were not provided and the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory.
• The 2 nd defendant explained that treasury bills and bonds worth Kshs 13,150,000.00 in Equity Bank Investment Bank account number 147496-0004 were financed from trading activities from 3 rd defendant and logging and farming. However, returns filed with Kenya Revenue Authority indicate that the 3 rd defendant was operating at a loss while the farming income was not supported and therefore the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory.
• Kshs 14,221,858.00 was deposited to the 2 nd defendant’s Mpesa account number 0724584639. The 2 nd defendant claimed that Kshs 13,231,458.00 of the deposits were rental income but no details or documentation were provided in respect of the rent allegedly received. She also claimed that she deposited some of the cash collected from the 3 rd defendant’s hotel and also withdrew from her bank accounts and deposited to the said Mpesa account. There were no highlights or links with the bank statements and therefore the claim could not be substantiated. The explanation was found not satisfactory.
• For Kshs 130,000.00 seized from a car registration number KCW 500Y, the 2 nd defendant asserted that it was an emergency fund which had been collected from the 3 rd defendant’s hotel. However, she did not give details of the period for which this money had been accumulated and the plaintiff found the explanation not satisfactory.
3 rd defendant
• The 3 rd defendant through the 2 nd
[...truncated]