Court Frees Three KQ Workers After KSh60 Million Heroin Case Collapses

Lennox Chengek Chestit, Alfric Odhiambo Otieno, and Kenneth Sinzore Isundu walked free after the High Court found critical gaps in the evidence linking them to nearly 20 kg of heroin. 

An eight-year heroin prosecution involving three Kenya Airways employees has collapsed spectacularly on appeal.

The High Court has quashed their convictions, overturning lengthy prison terms imposed less than one year ago.

Justice Diana Kavedza found serious gaps in evidence linking the three men to nearly twenty kilograms of heroin.

The ruling brings an extraordinary reversal in a case that once appeared to be a prosecution triumph.

Lennox Chengek Chestit, Alfric Odhiambo Otieno and Kenneth Sinzore Isundu were convicted in October 2025.

Senior Principal Magistrate Njeri Thuku subsequently sentenced each man to 25 years imprisonment.

They also received multimillion-shilling fines ranging between KSh88 million and KSh90 million.

The case began on November 2, 2017, at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.

Prosecutors alleged that Chestit and Isundu jointly conveyed 10,045.70 grams of heroin. That consignment carried an alleged value of KSh30.1 million.

A second count accused Otieno and Isundu of trafficking 9,845.70 grams. Prosecutors valued that consignment at approximately KSh29.5 million.

The allegations arose during a multi-agency operation targeting suspected narcotics trafficking at JKIA.

But when the case reached the High Court, its evidential foundations began showing troubling cracks.

Critical Gaps

The prosecution called 14 witnesses during the trial before the magistrate’s court.

Government Analyst evidence established that the recovered substance was heroin. Testing placed its purity at 35 per cent.

That finding proved the nature of the substance, but another question remained unanswered.

Could prosecutors reliably connect those drugs to these three particular men?

Justice Kavedza found they could not do so beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge examined the alleged recovery from luggage associated with Chestit and Otieno.

For Chestit, the prosecution relied heavily on a black backpack containing nine packages.

Chestit denied owning the bag.

More damagingly, investigators never established who brought the backpack onto the aircraft.

The CCTV evidence did not show who carried the backpack inside. Nor did it establish when the bag entered the aircraft.

Chestit’s evidence that the aircraft was already open when he boarded received important support from prosecution witnesses.

The judge therefore found that another person could have placed the backpack inside beforehand.

That possibility was never adequately eliminated by the prosecution.

Broken Chain

The handling of the exhibits created another major problem for the State.

Several prosecution witnesses confirmed that no inventory was prepared when the alleged drugs were recovered aboard the aircraft.

The exhibits were subsequently labelled at Anti-Narcotics Unit offices. Photographs were also taken roughly three hours later.

That delay mattered because criminal evidence must retain a reliable and traceable identity throughout its journey.

The court stressed that the chain should account for seizure, identification, labelling, transfer, analysis and production.

Here, crucial links remained uncertain.

Witnesses also disagreed about who recovered and marked drugs allegedly linked to Otieno.

One prosecution officer admitted he did not know who recovered Otieno’s alleged narcotics.

He also could not establish when the relevant bag had been recovered.

Another officer claimed he had assigned officers to handle Otieno’s search.

Yet those officers could not clearly explain who recovered or marked the exhibits.

Justice Kavedza found those contradictions fundamental rather than merely technical.

They went directly to the identity and integrity of the evidence used against Otieno.

The prosecution also failed to call some witnesses who could have clarified the disputed recovery.

The judge cited the established principle that material witnesses should ordinarily be made available.

Where prosecution evidence is already barely adequate, missing testimony can become particularly significant.

CCTV Trouble

Isundu’s conviction faced a different but equally serious evidential problem.

Unlike the other appellants, no narcotics were recovered from his person or luggage.

The prosecution instead alleged that he helped move the drugs onto the aircraft.

Its case relied substantially upon CCTV footage and his alleged association with Chestit and Otieno.

But the forensic officer who analysed the footage admitted he could not identify the accused persons.

He extracted 69 clips from 11 airport cameras. Those recordings showed vehicles, luggage movements and people around the airport.

Yet they did not independently establish who those people were.

The prosecution also produced no fingerprints, call records, messages or other forensic evidence connecting Isundu with the heroin.

The High Court therefore found the case against him substantially inferential.

The judge invoked a principle that became central to the entire appeal: suspicion cannot replace proof.

The prosecution had to establish individual participation, rather than rely upon association.

That distinction became particularly important because trafficking by conveying requires proof of movement.

The court relied on previous appellate decisions defining conveying as carrying or transferring narcotics between places.

Therefore, proving that heroin existed inside an aircraft was not enough.

Prosecutors had to prove that each appellant possessed and conveyed those drugs.

Convictions Quashed

By the judgement’s conclusion, the prosecution case had accumulated too many unanswered questions.

Who placed the backpack inside the aircraft? And who actually recovered the disputed exhibits?

Who marked them, and could their evidential journey be reliably traced afterwards?

Who exactly appeared in the CCTV footage allegedly connecting Isundu with the others?

The High Court found that the prosecution had not satisfactorily answered those questions.

For Chestit, disputed backpack ownership and his absence during recovery created reasonable doubt.

As for Otieno, contradictions surrounding recovery and exhibit marking undermined the chain of custody.

For Isundu, the prosecution offered no drugs, fingerprints or communications directly linking him to trafficking.

The judge therefore found that reasonable alternative explanations remained possible.

Those gaps could not lawfully be filled through speculation or assumptions.

“The prosecution failed to prove the offence of trafficking by conveying,” Justice Kavedza concluded.

The consolidated appeal was consequently allowed, and all three convictions were quashed.

Their 25-year sentences and accompanying fines were also set aside.

The three men were ordered released unless otherwise lawfully held.

READ ALSO: Court Upholds Sacking of Co-operative Bank Manager for Slapping Female Colleague’s Buttocks

The ruling does not establish that the heroin did not exist or was never recovered.

Nor does it determine who ultimately placed the narcotics aboard the aircraft.

Its central finding is narrower but legally decisive: the State failed to prove these three men conveyed those drugs.

After eight years of prosecution, that evidential distinction has proved the difference between imprisonment and freedom.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.