Court Orders Mission SOS Africa to Transfer Donor-Funded Assets After Bitter Leadership Dispute

The High Court found that Mission SOS International had a beneficial interest in specific vehicles and equipment acquired through its fundraising. But it rejected claims that disputed meetings transferred control of the organisation, exposing a bitter rift over millions in donations.

A bitter dispute between two charitable organisations has ended with a significant ruling over donor-funded property.

The High Court at Kilgoris ordered Mission SOS Africa Incorporated to transfer identified vehicles and equipment.

The assets must go to Mission SOS Adventure Africa Company Limited within ninety days.

Justice Charles Kariuki delivered the judgement on November 6, 2026.

He recognised Mission SOS International Incorporated’s beneficial interest under a constructive trust.

However, he rejected claims that disputed meetings had lawfully transferred organisational leadership.

The decision separates two issues that had become deeply entangled: ownership and control.

It also exposes the legal risks surrounding international fundraising and charitable partnerships.

Millions Raised

The dispute arose from a collaboration supporting religious and charitable activities around Kilgoris.

Mission SOS International said it mobilised more than USD 1.5 million internationally.

Donations reportedly came from supporters in the United States, Switzerland and Norway.

The funds supported mission operations, vehicles, equipment and other activities. The plaintiff maintained that its fundraising network financed several disputed assets.

These included trucks registered as KDC 347L, KDC 884R, KDC 916R and KDC 885R.

Trailers, containers and associated equipment also featured in the proceedings. The defendants argued that donations were intended for Mission SOS Africa.

They maintained that Mission SOS International merely facilitated fundraising and transmitted contributions.

That disagreement eventually became a battle over beneficial ownership. The plaintiff also alleged that leadership changes had been agreed through internal meetings.

Takeover Rejected

Mission SOS International relied on a meeting held on June 10, 2020.

It claimed the meeting reconstituted Mission SOS Africa’s leadership and appointed new office bearers.

A subsequent meeting on April 28, 2023, allegedly reaffirmed those changes.

The defendants disputed both meetings and challenged their constitutional validity.

They argued that proper notices, quorum and authorisation requirements had not been satisfied.

The plaintiff’s evidence proved insufficient to settle those questions.

Johannes Amritzer, its first witness, admitted he never attended the June 2020 meeting. Another witness, Fiore Londino, similarly lacked personal knowledge of its proceedings.

Gabriel Charo, a defence witness, denied convening or authorising the meeting. He also testified that he was responsible for issuing meeting notices.

Justice Kariuki found that signed minutes alone could not establish a valid resolution. The plaintiff had failed to demonstrate compliance with the society’s governing constitution.

The judge therefore dismissed the alleged leadership changes. He also rejected the claim that the nominated officials became lawful office bearers.

Importantly, that finding did not determine who beneficially owned the disputed assets.

Donor Money

The court separately examined whether international donations financed specific acquisitions. Five witnesses testified for Mission SOS International, including representatives of donor organisations.

Pastor Cullen Allen of Reach Church testified about donations exceeding USD 400,000. Pastor Timothée Zurcher of SOS Church Bienne described contributions exceeding USD 21,000.

Their testimony supported the plaintiff’s account of international fundraising. However, some witnesses lacked underlying transaction records or written funding agreements.

The court therefore examined bank statements, invoices, payment records and importation documents. It also considered vehicle registrations and evidence presented by the defendants.

One defence witness acknowledged that Amritzer coordinated donations channelled through Mission SOS International. The disagreement concerned whether those contributions were unrestricted gifts to Mission SOS Africa.

Justice Kariuki said the court had to distinguish fundraising from ownership. He required evidence connecting the money to particular assets.

The judge found that the plaintiff had substantially mobilised and transmitted donor funds. Documentary records and witness testimony established sufficient links to identified acquisitions.

He consequently recognised a constructive trust over those assets. The court found that retaining assets financed through those funds would be inequitable.

The judge relied on established principles governing constructive trusts and unjust enrichment. He stressed, however, that fundraising alone did not confer ownership.

The ruling therefore covered only assets sufficiently traced to the plaintiff’s funding. It did not automatically extend to every vehicle or item pleaded.

One vehicle was specifically excluded. The plaintiff failed to prove its beneficial interest in Toyota Coaster KDD 942J. Joseph Lerina Kiptek said Fernando had personally gifted him the vehicle. The court found insufficient evidence to displace that explanation.

Divided Victory

The court rejected the plaintiff’s wider allegations of fraud and fiduciary misconduct. It found that cooperation and fundraising did not establish the broader fiduciary relationship alleged.

Fraud also required stronger evidence than ordinary civil allegations. The plaintiff failed to prove deliberate deception, knowledge of falsity and reliance.

The defendants’ counterclaim was equally unsuccessful. They accused the plaintiff of changing bank signatories without proper authority.

However, they failed to establish the responsible individuals, specific transactions or resulting losses.

The court consequently dismissed their counterclaim and rejected their requested injunctions.

The ruling followed an earlier land judgement delivered on July 31, 2026.

In separate proceedings, the Environment and Land Court determined claims involving four Kilgoris parcels.

It ordered their transfer to Mission SOS Adventure Africa Company Limited.

Justice Kariuki clarified that his judgement did not reopen those land orders. The present ruling concerned movable property, not ownership or occupation of land.

READ ALSO: Court Blocks Bank From Auctioning Woman’s Household Goods Over Husband’s Debt

Mission SOS Africa must transfer the identified assets within ninety days. A permanent injunction prevents dealings inconsistent with the plaintiff’s declared beneficial interest.

The Deputy Registrar may execute necessary transfer documents if the organisation defaults.

Each party will bear its own costs, reflecting the mixed outcome. Mission SOS International secured the assets claim but lost its leadership and fraud claims.

The judgement sends a clear message to charitable organisations handling international donations.

Courts may recognise beneficial ownership despite formal registration in another organisation’s name.

But claimants must prove how their funds financed specific assets.

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