Court Seizes Drug-Linked Car as Registration Error Sinks Second Forfeiture Claim

The High Court ordered the forfeiture of a vehicle after its owner failed to explain its financing. But a registration-number error derailed the Assets Recovery Agency’s separate claim, exposing a costly weakness in its case.

A Kenyan court has ordered the forfeiture of a vehicle linked to suspected drug-trafficking proceeds after its owner failed to demonstrate legitimate financing.

Justice Benjamin Musyoki ruled that Mario Amukhula Nekesa Anekeya had not satisfactorily explained how he acquired the vehicle registered in his name.

The High Court ordered the National Transport and Safety Authority to transfer the vehicle to the Assets Recovery Agency.

Yet the agency’s victory came with an embarrassing setback. Its claim against another vehicle collapsed because of a discrepancy in the registration number stated in its application.

In a judgement delivered on October 16, 2026, the court declared vehicle KCY 408L proceeds of crime.

The decision followed investigations into suspected narcotics trafficking involving Anekeya, his father, and two other suspects.

Millions in Motion

The case originated from arrests made in Mutalia, Malaa, and Kamulu on January 31, 2024.

Those arrested included Anekeya, his father Haggai Anekeya Oniango, Josephine Shimunzali, and Shimirimana Dorine.

Investigators searched premises where the suspects were staying and recovered two consignments of cannabis. The substances weighed 5,048 grams and 2,222 grams, respectively.

The four suspects were subsequently charged on February 5, 2024, in Criminal Case E014 of 2024.

They faced charges relating to trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

The Assets Recovery Agency launched a parallel investigation to establish whether assets were purchased using criminal proceeds.

Investigating officer Duncan Odhiambo told the court that Anekeya’s M-Pesa accounts recorded suspicious transactions.

The agency said transactions totalling KSh19.67 million occurred between July 2023 and September 2024.

Investigators alleged that money moved between two mobile-money numbers before passing through an M-Shwari account.

They also identified KSh1.779 million in payments from Erick Gitaka Kabuire.

The agency suspected Kabuire was connected to Oniango’s alleged drug-trafficking activities.

He was summoned to explain the payments but reportedly failed to attend.

Investigators also identified approximately KSh125.5 million in transactions involving Oniango’s mobile-money accounts between 2019 and 2024.

They questioned how those transactions were supported by his declared business activities and tax records.

The agency alleged that Oniango financed vehicles subsequently registered in his son’s name.

Businesses Under Scrutiny

Anekeya denied acquiring the vehicles through criminal proceeds. He maintained that he operated Centigrade, comprising a bar, restaurant, and betting business.

He produced permits and licences that he said demonstrated legitimate operations dating back to 2015.

Anekeya argued that income from these businesses explained his ability to purchase the vehicles.

He also claimed investigators had closed his businesses and retained records needed to establish their operations.

The agency challenged that explanation through a supplementary affidavit filed in July 2026. It said the Business Registration Service found no companies registered using either man’s identity number.

Centigrade Limited, investigators reported, was registered under different individuals in October 2007.

Nairobi City County reportedly found no records for Oniango in its business database. The Gambling Regulatory Authority also confirmed that neither Anekeya nor Centigrade appeared in its records as a licensed betting operator.

The judge found Anekeya’s explanation inadequate, questioning his failure to identify the business premises. He described the explanation of his income as “wanting.”

Forfeiture Rules

The court applied Section 92(1) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act. The provision permits forfeiture where property was used in an offence or constitutes proceeds of crime.

The applicable standard is proof on a balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the agency must first establish a sufficient connection between the property and unlawful conduct. The evidential burden then shifts to the respondent to explain how the property was lawfully acquired.

Justice Musyoki also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and another v Aboo [2026] KESC 44 (KLR).

The Supreme Court affirmed that acquittal does not automatically shield property from civil forfeiture. Such proceedings examine the property’s connection to unlawful conduct, independently of criminal guilt.

The judge found that Oniango’s alleged financing of the vehicle, considered alongside the surrounding evidence, established a sufficient initial case.

Anekeya failed to provide a convincing explanation capable of displacing that evidence. The court consequently declared KCY 408L proceeds of crime and ordered its forfeiture.

Error Costs

The agency’s claim concerning the second vehicle encountered a different obstacle.

Its formal application identified KDM 296Q, while its supporting evidence repeatedly referred to KDM 397U. The evidence linked KDM 397U with Sanah Exim Limited and an alleged hire-purchase arrangement.

Justice Musyoki held that the discrepancy was fundamental, not a harmless technicality. The company had not been properly called upon to answer a forfeiture claim concerning the vehicle identified in the evidence.

The judge warned that ordering forfeiture of KDM 397U would violate the company’s right to a fair hearing. The agency had not applied to amend its pleadings after the inconsistency emerged.

Consequently, the claim concerning the incorrectly identified vehicle failed without determination of its substantive merits.

READ ALSO: High Court Blocks Tahmeed Transporters’ Bid to Reclaim Truck in KSh4.47 Million Drug Case

The judgement’s final orders identify KDM 296Q, although its analysis also refers to KDM 286Q. That discrepancy warrants verification against the official court record.

Ultimately, the court ordered KCY 408L transferred to the Assets Recovery Agency on behalf of the Government.

Anekeya was also ordered to pay the proceedings’ costs.

The ruling offers a pointed lesson for asset recovery investigators: financial evidence matters, but accurate pleadings remain essential when the state seeks private property.

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