“We, in the circumstances, do not find it plausible that the significant cash deposits were derived from the alleged farming business, which we respectfully think were non-existent or a mere phantom…” – Kiage, Achode & Muchelule, JJ.A, dismissing the appeal against the forfeiture of the Sahara Consultants accounts.
Lilian Wanja Muthoni Mbogo t/a Sahara Consultants & 5 others v Assets Recovery Agency, Civil Appeal No. E221 of 2020, [2026] KECA 1534 (KLR), Judgment of Kiage, Achode & Muchelule, JJ.A, delivered at Nairobi on 31st July 2026.
BACKGROUND
Eight years after the National Youth Service haemorrhaged Ksh.467,896,993, the forfeiture chapter of that scandal has been laid to rest. On 31st July 2026, the Court of Appeal (Kiage, Achode & Muchelule, JJ.A) dismissed with costs the appeal against Mumbi Ngugi, J.’s judgment of 15th April 2020 in ACEC Application No. 58 of 2018, which declared USD 105,293.7 and Ksh.22,445,487.74 held in ten accounts, in the names of a consultant, her two companies and her three children, proceeds of crime and forfeited them to the State.
KEY HOLDINGS AND THEIR ANALYTICAL WEIGHT
1. The Agency and its Director are interchangeable
Sections 82(1) and 90(1) of POCAMLA name the Agency Director as the moving party; the appellants pressed that proceedings lodged by the Agency were a nullity. Not so: section 53(1) clothes the Agency with the power to sue and be sued, and section 53(5) permits delegation of the Director’s functions. Following Mangira & another v Assets Recovery Agency; Ali Cars Limited (Interested Party) [2024] KECA 1488 (KLR), the mis-description was a formal infraction capable of being ignored. That locus standi objection, long a staple of forfeiture defences, is now firmly shut.
2. Aboo applied, faithfully and significantly
The centrepiece of the judgment is its adoption of the Supreme Court’s fresh, binding authority in Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & another v Aboo [2026] KESC 44 (KLR). The Agency must establish a nexus between the res and a crime or its intended commission; but neither acquittal, nor withdrawal of charges, nor an investigation too thin to sustain one, insulates property from forfeiture.
Section 92(4) fortifies this, delinking the validity of a forfeiture order from criminal outcomes. Anti-Corruption Case Nos. 8, 10 and 11 of 2018 had been withdrawn by the prosecution; that was held inconsequential so long as a plausible, bona fide charge had existed. This is the doctrinal heart of the decision: civil forfeiture proceeds against the property, and the criminal docket is not its master.
3. The burden shifts, and it shifts early
Invoking Aboo again: whoever asserts must prove. The Agency must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that funds are proceeds of crime, whereupon the evidential burden shifts to the holder. The argument that proof of legitimacy of income belongs only to criminal forfeiture under section 65(1), post-conviction, was rejected.
4. Minors, accounts and impermissible hair-splitting
No guardian ad litem was appointed for the two minor appellants, contrary to Order 32 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court, which raised the point from the bench, nonetheless found them ably represented: the 1st appellant had opened, operated and controlled their accounts and deposed on their behalf. To hold otherwise would be impermissible hair-splitting. An account in a child’s name is not a sanctuary.
5. The evidentiary anatomy of laundering
The fact-finding is itself a compliance template. The Court weighed deposits structured below the Ksh.1,000,000 reporting threshold under section 44 and the Fourth Schedule, regulation 34 of the POCAMLA Regulations, 2013 and the Central Bank Prudential Guidelines; cash imported undeclared, contrary to section 12(1), the Second Schedule and regulation 8; a Siaya farm found to be a mere phantom; receipts undated or outside 2016 to 2018 and totalling only about Ksh.390,000; KRA returns disclosing no farming income; no deposit into the husband’s consultancy account during the period investigated; and parallel same-day deposits of Ksh.900,000 into multiple accounts. Nothing, the Court concluded, comes out of nothing.
6. Article 40(6) and the rule against doubtful penalisation
Reliance on Halsbury’s rule against doubtful penalisation failed. Article 40(6) withholds the property right from property unlawfully acquired; deprivation in such circumstances is not penalisation upon an ambiguity.
TAKE-HOME ACTION POINTS
Reporting institutions and DNFBPs: structuring is now judicially catalogued. Calibrate monitoring for sub-threshold tranching, same-day multi-account deposits and intra-group transfers, and report suspicious transactions; the pattern itself was treated as probative.
Asset holders and businesses: the defence is documentary and contemporaneous. Permits, invoices, ETR records and consistent tax returns separate explanation from assertion. Declare cross-border currency at entry.
Parents, trustees and fiduciaries: accounts held for minors are traced to the person in actual control; minority is no bar.
Counsel & Practitioners: raise capacity and representation objections at first instance; observe Rule 88(1), the Court again censuring multilevel narrative grounds; and abandon the assumption that a withdrawn charge ends the Agency’s interest in the res.
The Agency (ARA): a mandate to invest in nexus evidence, site visits, tax records and transactional analysis, not inference from lifestyle.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Seemingly and finally, the NYS forfeiture fiasco takes an eternal rest at the Court of Appeal. The decision does not enlarge the Agency’s powers; it disciplines them, insisting on a proven nexus while denying acquitted and uncharged holders the shelter they had assumed. For anyone whose banking history outruns their documented income, that is the more consequential half of the ruling.
This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary as set out in the article should be held without seeking specific legal advice on the subject matter. If you have any query regarding the same, please do not hesitate to contact the Litigation Department at Litigation@wamaeallen.com.
About the author
Caxstone specializes in civil, employment and labour disputes, constitutional law, family law and succession, and environment and land matters. He has amassed a wealth of knowledge and experience in litigation which is evident in the successes obtained for clients. He is an active member of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Bar-Bench committee.
Denis Mutugi specializes in Commercial Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Denis graduated with a Bachelor of Laws, LLB (Hons) from The University of Nairobi in 2021 and was admitted to the Roll of Advocates of the High Court of Kenya in the year 2023.
Denis has amassed a considerable wealth of experience in conducting legal research on various complex legal matters touching on Commercial, Insurance, Employment and Insolvency law and bankruptcy.
