https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10239

Assets Recovery Agency v Wanjiru & 3 others (Civil Suit E006 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 10239 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (14 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10239 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E006 of 2025 REA Ougo, J July 14, 2026 Between Assets Recovery Agency Applicant and Cecilia Nyathira Wanjiru 1st Respondent Roba Hassan Boru Abdinur 2nd Respondent Mohammed Juma Guyo 3rd Respondent and George Karuma Kimani Interested Party Judgment 1.The Applicant moved the court by way of Originating Motion dated 6th February 2025, which was amended on 13th June 2025. The Amended Originating Motion is premised on Sections 53 (1), 81 (1), 90 (1) and 92 (1) and (2) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, all other enabling provisions of the law, and pursuant to the order issued on 18th June 2025. 2.The application seeks for orders that: -a.This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order in the nature of a declaration that the following motor vehicles are proceeds of crime or criminal activities and therefore liable for forfeiture to the Government of the Republic of Kenya in terms of sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2009:i.KBW872T-Toyota Fielder Chasis No. NZE121-3387623;ii.KCP586S-Toyota Rumion Chasis No. NZE151-1099307;iii.KCZ988R-Toyota Prado Chasis No. TRJ150-0030218;iv.KCW236E-Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up Chasis No. JTBB71J70-4002285;v.KBH208Q-Mitsubishi Fuso Chasis No. FK628K-540246; andvi.KCC510B-Toyota Station Wagon Chasis No. ZRR70-0081800.b.This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order forfeiting the following motor vehicles to the Government of the Republic of Kenya:i.KBW872T-Toyota Fielder Chasis No. NZE121-3387623;ii.KCP586S-Toyota Rumion Chasis No. NZE151-1099307;iii.KCZ988R-Toyota Prado Chasis No. TRJ150-0030218;iv.KCW236E-Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up Chasis No. JTBB71J70-4002285;v.KBH208Q-Mitsubishi Fuso Chasis No. FK628K-540246; andvi.KCC510B-Toyota Station Wagon Chasis No. ZRR70-0081800.c.This Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order directing the Director General, National Transport and Safety Authority to transfer the proprietary interest in the motor vehicles referred to in (a) and (b) above to the Assets Recovery Agency and issue registration certificates accordingly;d.Costs of this suit; ande.Any other order or relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to issue in the circumstances. 3.The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Mohamed Hussein, which states that investigations commenced in July 2024 after information was received that on 6th June 2024 the 2nd and 3rd Respondents had been arrested while driving Motor Vehicle Registration No. KDJ 726Q - Honda Fit, on suspicion that they were proceeding to collect Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCP 586S - Toyota Rumion, believed to be transporting narcotic drugs from the 1st Respondent’s residence. Consequently, the Applicant opened Inquiry File No. 67 of 2024 pursuant to Sections 54(1) and (2) of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA). 4.Investigations established that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents led police officers to the 1st Respondent’s residence at Kiganjo, Makongeni, Thika, where a search of the premises and the Toyota Rumion recovered 38 bales of dry plant material packed in six sacks from the motor vehicle and an additional sack of suspected narcotic substances from the house. The recovered substances weighed 182.15 kilograms and 1.95 kilograms, respectively, and, upon analysis, were confirmed to be cannabis with a combined market value exceeding Kshs. 5.5 million. 5.The Applicant further stated that investigations revealed that the 1st Respondent is the registered owner of Motor Vehicle Registration No. KBW 872T, while the 2nd Respondent owns Motor Vehicle Registration No. KCP 586S - Toyota Rumion as well as motor vehicles KCZ 988R - Toyota Prado, KCW 236E - Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up and KBH 208Q - Mitsubishi Fuso. According to the Applicant, the Respondents do not operate any legitimate businesses capable of generating sufficient income to acquire the said motor vehicles. Analysis of their bank accounts allegedly disclosed substantial cash deposits linked to persons suspected of engaging in narcotics trafficking, including one Ruth Atieno Ouma. 6.The Applicant also stated that the 3rd Respondent had previously been arrested on 31st January 2024 and charged before the Kahawa Law Courts in Kahawa MCCR/E036/2024 – Republic v Zachary Muli Kilonzo and Mohamed Juma Guyo for trafficking in narcotic substances. Further, the Applicant obtained preservation orders in Milimani HCMISC/E050/2024 – The Agency Director, Assets Recovery Agency v Cecilia Nyathira Muthoni & 3 others, which were issued on 17th October 2024 and published in the Kenya Gazette on 8th November 2024. 7.On the basis of those investigations, the Applicant maintained that the motor vehicles were proceeds of crime and prayed that they be declared forfeited to the Government of Kenya under Sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act. 8.In the Supporting Affidavit to the application, sworn on 13th June 2025, Mohamed Hussein, a police officer attached to the Assets Recovery Agency, deposed that the 1st Respondent claimed to be a poultry farmer who also operated two bars. He stated that on 7th June 2023, she purchased a Toyota Fielder for Kshs. 700,000, registered in her name. He further averred that the sale documents and the seller’s details were available, and that Kshs. 620,000 of the purchase price was paid through her Equity Bank account, with the balance of Kshs. 80,000 settled in cash. 9.The deponent further averred that an analysis of the 1st Respondent’s financial records disclosed suspicious transactions. He stated that her NCBA Bank Account No. 2383020016, opened in September 2020, received a credit of Kshs. 1,241.78, which cleared the negative balance, after which the account remained dormant. 10.He deposed that the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 01103278568700, opened on 3rd March 2017 at the Thika Branch, initially received a cash deposit of Kshs. 500 via M-Pesa and a PesaLink transfer of Kshs. 40,000. He further stated that subsequent deposits totalling Kshs. 510,880 comprised cash deposits made by the 1st Respondent through the bank’s automated teller machines. According to the deponent, apart from transfers of Kshs. 25,000 and Kshs. 117,000 to the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 01116278568700, withdrawals totalling Kshs. 290,000 were made in cash, and the account became dormant from 11th October 2019. 11.The deponent further stated that the 1st Respondent’s Co-operative Bank Account No. 0119227858700, opened in October 2021 at the Garissa Branch, predominantly received cash deposits from her mobile number 0725816032, despite being registered as a business account, except for deposits originating from the phone numbers 254113418136, 254721134216 and 254729234824. He further averred that withdrawals were largely made in cash through the bank’s automated teller machines, except for payments made through internet banking on 16th May 2021. He added that the last cash deposit of Kshs. 1,770 was made on 23rd July 2024, after which the account remained dormant. 12.The deponent stated that although the 1st Respondent’s Equity Bank Account No. 0340190743168, opened in January 2014, had initially received deposits from her employment income and tea factory earnings, it began receiving multiple deposits ranging from Kshs. 60 to Kshs. 40,000 from various individuals in 2022. He further stated that the account occasionally benefited from bank loans ranging from Kshs. 20,000 to Kshs. 100,000. He averred that the account facilitated the purchase of the motor vehicle in June 2023 after Kshs. 510,000 had been transferred from her M-Pesa account shortly before Kshs. 620,000 was remitted towards the purchase price. According to the deponent, the deposited funds were first applied to offset an overdraft, and the balance was then transferred to pay for the vehicle. 13.The deponent further deposed that an examination of the 1st Respondent’s M-Pesa Wallet Account No. 0725816032, which had been operational since April 2017, revealed extensive use of Fuliza overdraft facilities. He stated that the account primarily received funds from Mr. Noel Lukose Ahono and Ms. Angela Marashe Kimathi, whom the 1st Respondent identified as her distributors. He alleged that the funds were subsequently transferred to other persons, channelled into her bank accounts, and ultimately used to acquire the motor vehicle. He further averred that between March and June 2023, the 1st Respondent transferred Kshs. 796,000 to the 3rd Respondent via the phone numbers 0724986957 and 0726177781, Kshs. 4,600,630 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, and Kshs. 1,335,000 to Ms. Sofia Adan. He maintained that the source of these funds was traced to Mr. Noel Lukose Ahono and Ms. Angela Marashe Kimathi. 14.Regarding the 2nd Respondent, Roba Hassan Boru Abdinur, the deponent stated that he was the registered owner of the motor vehicles KCZ 988R, KCW 236E, KCL 802S and KBH 208Q. He averred that an examination of the 2nd Respondent’s financial records revealed a pattern of unexplained wealth. 15.The deponent stated that the 2nd Respondent’s NCBA Bank Account No. 3631520051 received a loan disbursement of Kshs. 2,446,161.17 on 18th September 2020. He further stated that Kshs. 148,954 was used to transfer motor vehicle KCW 597H, and that Kshs. 146,945 and Kshs. 166,990 were paid towards the transfer of motor vehicle KCW 236E, although the latter payment of Kshs. 166,990 was reversed on 12th March 2021. He alleged that the loan proceeds were not fully utilised for the acquisition of the two motor vehicles and that a sum of Kshs. 1,712,682.08 was repaid within a relatively short period on 19th March 2021. 16.The deponent further alleged that after the account became dormant, it later received unexplained cash deposits, M-Pesa transfers totalling Kshs. 1,933,720, and PesaLink transfers totalling Kshs. 176,000, from the 2nd Respondent's other bank accounts. 17.He further deposed that although the 2nd Respondent’s Equity Bank Account No. 0840179854859 had been opened in 2014, it remained dormant until 2020, when it allegedly received transfers totalling Kshs. 13,500,000 from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, whom he described as a convicted drug trafficker. He alleged that the transfers were deliberately structured below the Kshs. 1,000,000 reporting threshold and that the funds were commingled with other monies before being used to purchase the motor vehicle KCZ 988R Toyota Prado. He further stated that the account also transferred Kshs. 70,000 to the 3rd Respondent and Kshs. 210,000 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry. 18.The deponent further averred that the 2nd Respondent’s M-Pesa Account No. 0740496868 received Kshs. 1,111,000 from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, which he alleged was used to repay loans, make M-Shwari deposits and transfer funds to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry. He further stated that the 2nd Respondent’s other M-Pesa Account No. 0793697648 received Kshs. 6,000 from the 3rd Respondent and subsequently transferred Kshs. 342,200 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry. 19.The deponent stated that during a recorded interview, the 2nd Respondent attributed his wealth to income from a retail shop, watermelon farming and motor vehicle hire services. However, he contended that these explanations were inconsistent with the financial records and lacked documentary support. He further alleged that the 2nd Respondent failed to explain the substantial transfers received from Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma or the discrepancies in payments made for his motor vehicles. 20.Regarding the 3rd Respondent, Mohammed Juma Guyo, the deponent stated that he was the registered owner of the motor vehicle with registration number KCC 510B, a Toyota Voxy, and that he operated two M-Pesa accounts, namely account numbers 0724986957 and 0726177781. 21.The deponent averred that the 3rd Respondent’s financial records revealed extensive transfers. He alleged that M-Pesa Account No. 0726177781 received Kshs. 346,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 190,000 from the 2nd Respondent. He further stated that the account recorded 124 transactions with Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, through which Kshs. 1,562,850 was received and Kshs. 487,730 was transferred. Additionally, he stated that the account recorded 94 transactions involving Ms. Sofia Adan, ranging from Kshs. 150 to Kshs. 250,000. 22.The deponent further stated that the 3rd Respondent’s second M-Pesa Account No. 0724986957 likewise received Kshs. 450,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 6,000 from the 2nd Respondent. He further averred that the account recorded 71 transactions with Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, involving amounts ranging from Kshs. 1,000 to Kshs. 250,000, through which Kshs. 1,978,900 was received and Kshs. 1,393,600 was transferred. He also stated that the account recorded 115 transactions with Ms. Sofia Adan, involving amounts ranging from Kshs. 100 to Kshs. 97,000, through which Kshs. 321,950 was transferred and Kshs. 650,250 was received. He added that the account transferred Kshs. 39,500 to Mr. Daniel Shamala Shitagwa as alleged payments for the hire of motor vehicles, including a Honda Fit. 23.The deponent further stated that during his interview, the 3rd Respondent claimed to be a taxi driver and a former goat trader but failed to provide documentary evidence to support those sources of income. He further alleged that the 3rd Respondent was unable to explain the source of funds used to purchase the motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B, and that his financial records did not disclose any transaction with the alleged vendor of the vehicle. 24.The deponent concluded that the 1st Respondent’s explanation that she purchased her motor vehicle using business savings and bank loans was false, maintaining that the funds originated from her M-Pesa account after she received money from Mr. Noel Ahono and Ms. Angela Kimathi, before the funds were channelled to the 3rd Respondent and his associates. 25.He further concluded that the 2nd Respondent’s assertion that his assets were acquired from proceeds of his retail business and watermelon farming was unsubstantiated. He maintained that the financial records demonstrated a direct link between the 2nd Respondent and Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma, and that funds received from her were used to acquire at least one motor vehicle and to make payments to the 3rd Respondent and his associates. 26.The deponent also contended that the 3rd Respondent’s claim to have earned his income as a taxi driver and former goat trader remained unverified. He asserted that the financial records placed the 3rd Respondent at the centre of a network of financial transactions involving the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their associates, thereby rendering the source of his wealth highly suspect. 27.The deponent further stated that all three Respondents had either failed to file tax returns or had declared minimal tax liabilities, which, in his view, was inconsistent with the substantial financial transactions recorded in their respective accounts. 28.Finally, the deponent stated that the Applicant instituted preservation proceedings in October 2024 to prevent the disposal of the subject motor vehicles and that the resultant preservation orders were subsequently published in the Kenya Gazette. RESPONSES 29.The 1st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit, sworn on 29th April 2025, opposing the application. She deposed that the Applicant had failed to present any firm or cogent evidence showing that her motor vehicle constituted proceeds of crime or had been used in the commission of any offence. She stated that the application was based on mere suspicion, which was insufficient to justify forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA). She maintained that, as a civil forfeiture matter, the burden rested on the Applicant to prove its allegations on a balance of probabilities through credible evidence rather than speculation. 30.The 1st Respondent denied any involvement in the alleged possession, trafficking, handling, or association with narcotic drugs, and further denied any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents beyond what had been alleged. The Applicant failed to establish any nexus between her, the other Respondents, and the alleged narcotic substances. 31.The 1st Respondent deposed that she was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle registered under number KBW 872T - a Toyota Fielder, which had been searched by the police without any narcotic drugs or other incriminating items being recovered. She relied on the Certificate of Entry and the Search Certificate dated 7th June 2024 to demonstrate that the vehicle was cleared during the search. She further maintained that there was no evidence linking the vehicle to any unlawful or criminal activity, and that the documentation relating to the vehicle established its legitimacy and regulatory compliance. 32.The 1st Respondent further stated that the funds reflected in her M-Pesa statements, totalling Kshs. 796,000, were proceeds of her legitimate business operations, namely Philsteph Bar and Mukuyu-ini Bar, both duly registered and licensed. She annexed valid liquor licences and asserted that the M-Pesa transactions were consistent with the sale of goods and services in the ordinary course of business. She denied any connection to the loan facilities, transactions, or payments reflected in the 2nd Respondent’s NCBA account, and disclaimed any association with the referenced loan disbursements or motor vehicles. 33.The 1st Respondent also stated that she had never previously been arrested, charged, or investigated for any narcotics-related offence. She emphasized that the Applicant had not produced any direct or circumstantial evidence linking her to the alleged criminal enterprise. She argued that there was no evidence of conspiracy, participation in drug trafficking, or any nexus between her and the narcotic substances allegedly recovered. 34.Finally, the 1st Respondent urged the court to find that the Applicant’s allegations were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and incapable of meeting the statutory threshold for forfeiture. She maintained that the Applicant had failed to prove that the motor vehicle or the funds in question were proceeds of crime or intended for use in criminal activity and prayed that the application be dismissed with costs. 35.The 2nd Respondent in his Replying Affidavit dated 6th May 2025 denied that the four motor vehicles registered in his name were proceeds of crime. He maintained that the vehicles were lawfully acquired through legitimate business ventures, including transportation, logistics, farming, and retail trade, with additional financial support from his parents. 36.He deposed that after working in his parents’ business, he established a gas supply business and later, together with his wife, operated a wholesale and retail textile shop in Eastleigh. He explained that each of the motor vehicles was acquired using legitimate income and bank financing. He stated that motor vehicle KCL 802S was purchased through an NCBA Bank loan, used for transporting farm produce and election logistics, and later sold to finance the purchase of KCP 586S. He further averred that the Mitsubishi lorry - KBH 208Q was purchased using proceeds from his watermelon farming and retail business, while the Toyota Land Cruiser - KCW 236E and Toyota Prado - KCZ 988R were acquired through asset financing from NCBA Bank, with repayments made from income earned through transport contracts with organizations such as Concern Worldwide, the Red Cross, and Action Against Hunger, as well as proceeds from his other business activities. 37.Regarding the events leading to the investigations, the 2nd Respondent stated that he was arrested on 5th June 2024, together with the 3rd Respondent, in Eastleigh. He was surprised to learn that his motor vehicle, KCP 586S, had been found at the 1st Respondent’s residence, where suspected cannabis was recovered. He explained that he had lent the vehicle to a person introduced by his friend, Mohammed Juma, based on mutual trust, and had no knowledge that it would be used in any unlawful activity. 38.The 2nd Respondent maintained that he had never been charged with or investigated for any criminal offence and stated that the Applicant had failed to establish any nexus between him, his motor vehicles, and the alleged criminal conduct. That the vehicles were lawfully acquired through verifiable business income and financial support from his parents and were therefore not proceeds of crime. Invoking Article 40 of the Constitution, he deposed that forfeiture would unjustifiably deprive him of his property and livelihood. He accordingly urged the court to dismiss the application with costs for lack of merit. 39.The 3rd Respondent opposed the application by his Replying Affidavit, sworn on 28th April 2025, in which he asserted that he was the lawful owner of the motor vehicle KCC 510B - Toyota Station Wagon, which he purchased with proceeds from his legitimate livestock, meat distribution, and brokerage businesses. He stated that although he was facing criminal charges for narcotics trafficking before the Kahawa Law Courts, he had pleaded not guilty and remained presumed innocent until proven guilty. He further contended that the deponent of the Applicant's supporting affidavit had not participated in the investigations and therefore lacked personal knowledge of the facts. 40.The 3rd Respondent denied possessing or trafficking narcotic drugs and maintained that no narcotics were recovered from his person, motor vehicle, or residence. He challenged the Applicant to prove its allegations and argued that the Applicant's account of his arrest and the alleged recovery of narcotics was inconsistent with the statements of the investigating police officers, none of whom stated that he led them to the 1st Respondent's residence or that he had been tracked from Thika to Nairobi. 41.He explained that the bank and M-Pesa transactions relied upon by the Applicant stemmed from his lawful businesses in livestock trading, meat distribution, and brokerage in grains, rice, and sugar. He further deposed that he jointly operated interior design and furniture resale businesses with his wife, Safia Yusuf Adan. He described his business relationship with the 2nd Respondent as having developed through livestock and cereal brokerage, while his association with the 1st Respondent arose through his wife and later expanded into livestock and sugar brokerage ventures. 42.The 3rd Respondent stated that although he received money from both the 1st and 2nd Respondents, the payments were for legitimate business transactions only. He explained that funds from the 1st Respondent were payments for livestock and merchandise supplied to clients she sourced, while funds from the 2nd Respondent were for livestock and brokerage dealings. He denied any association with known narcotics traffickers or with the individuals named Noel Lukose Ahono and Angela Marashe Kimathi. 43.He further explained that funds remitted by Halima Mohamed Henry were payments for livestock and brokerage supplies, and that she had been introduced to him by the 1st Respondent. He also detailed his livestock sourcing from licensed dealers in Kitui, Narok, Kajiado, and Moyale, and produced livestock movement licences to support his lawful business activities. 44.The 3rd Respondent further deposed that DCI officers had raided his residence in February 2024 and confiscated documents that would have substantiated his legitimate businesses and the acquisition of his motor vehicle. He maintained that the statements of the 1st and 2nd Respondents concerning the recovery of narcotics excluded him from the alleged chain of events. Consequently, he stated that the Applicant had failed to establish any nexus between him, his motor vehicle, and the alleged proceeds of crime, and urged the court to dismiss the application for preservation and forfeiture orders. 45.The 3rd Respondent filed a Further Replying Affidavit sworn on 8th October 2025 opposing the Amended Originating Motion dated 13th June 2025. He adopted his earlier statement dated 20th January 2025 annexed as MH-29, maintaining that it accurately set out his personal background and the legitimate business activities through which he acquired motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B - Toyota Voxy. 46.He acknowledged that he was facing two pending narcotics trafficking cases before the Kahawa Law Courts, but emphasised that he had pleaded not guilty and remained presumed innocent until proven guilty. He pointed out that he had never been convicted of any offence and that the Applicant had not alleged any association between him and any convicted persons. He further contended that the deponent of the Applicant's affidavit had not personally investigated his case, having been seconded to the Assets Recovery Agency rather than serving as a field investigator with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. 47.The 3rd Respondent reiterated that no narcotic drugs were recovered from his person, residence, or motor vehicle, and maintained that his Toyota Voxy was lawfully purchased with proceeds from his livestock, meat distribution, and brokerage businesses. He deposed that the Applicant’s account of his arrest and the alleged recovery of narcotics was inconsistent with the statements recorded by the investigating police officers. He noted that the Applicant selectively relied on one pending criminal case while omitting another in which he was charged, despite the alleged drugs having been recovered from a different location with no connection to him. 48.He maintained that all bank and M-Pesa transactions attributed to him were for legitimate livestock, meat, grain, sugar, and brokerage businesses, as previously explained in his statement. He further explained that he jointly operated interior design and furniture resale businesses with his wife, Safia Yusuf Adan, and described his business relationships with the 1st and 2nd Respondents as arising from legitimate livestock, sugar, and brokerage transactions. He clarified that while he received payments from both Respondents for livestock and merchandise supplied, he never transferred money to either of them, except for soft loans from the 2nd Respondent during their business relationship. He also denied any association with known narcotics traffickers, including Noel Lukose Ahono and Angela Marashe Kimathi. 49.The 3rd Respondent further explained that the funds received from Halima Mohamed Henry were payments for livestock and brokerage transactions, and that she had been introduced to him by the 1st Respondent. He stated that he sourced livestock from licensed dealers in Kitui, Narok, Kajiado, and Moyale, and that he produced livestock movement permits and a reference letter to support the legitimacy of his business activities. 50.He also deposed that following his arrest on 31st January 2024, DCI officers searched his residence and confiscated numerous business documents that would have demonstrated the lawful acquisition of his vehicle and the legitimacy of his business operations. He argued that the Applicant had conducted no meaningful investigation into the ownership or acquisition of his motor vehicle and had failed to rebut the explanation contained in annexure MH-29. He maintained that there was no evidence linking him or his vehicle to narcotic drugs or proceeds of crime and that the statements of the 1st and 2nd Respondents excluded him from the alleged chain of criminal events. 51.Finally, the 3rd Respondent stated that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the legal threshold for preservation and forfeiture under the law. That forfeiture would unjustifiably deprive him of his principal means of transport for his livestock business and taxi operations, contrary to Article 40 of the Constitution, which protects the right to property. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the amended Originating Motion with costs. 52.In rebuttal, the Applicant filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 10th December 2025 by Benedict Kaulu, an Investigator working with and attached to the Assets Recovery Agency, who deposed that investigations into the M-Pesa accounts of Angela Marashe Kimathi and Noel Lukose Ahono, conducted pursuant to court warrants, revealed a pattern of cash deposits followed by transfers to the 1st and 3rd Respondents, as well as to Halima Mohamed Henry and Sofia Adan. Although the Agency repeatedly attempted to obtain statements from Angela Kimathi and Noel Ahono, they failed to respond to calls or comply with formal requisitions requiring their attendance. 53.Regarding the 1st Respondent, the investigator stated that the Agency recorded a statement from Joel Maina Kanuni, who confirmed that he sold a Toyota Fielder to her in July 2023 for Kshs. 700,000. He further deposed that shortly after the purchase, the 1st Respondent transferred Kshs. 150,000 from her M-Shwari account to the 3rd Respondent. 54.As concerns the 2nd Respondent, he deposed that Susan Wangui Kimotho, the alleged buyer and seller of vehicles involving the 2nd Respondent, declined to record a statement despite admitting she was a motor vehicle broker. Investigations further established that the 2nd Respondent purchased a Toyota Prado for Kshs. 4,900,000, partly financed through funds received from Ruth Atieno Ouma, and that the logbooks relied upon by the 2nd Respondent related to a period after the vehicle had already been acquired. 55.The investigator further challenged the authenticity of documents produced by the Respondents. While the livestock movement permits produced by the 1st Respondent were confirmed genuine, several permits relied upon by the 3rd Respondent were found to be fabricated, lacking official stamps, issued to third parties, or originating from foreign jurisdictions. He also deposed that the business permits produced by the 2nd Respondent were fake, not issued by the Nairobi City County Government, and instead belonging to another entity. 56.Finally, the investigator stated that the 3rd Respondent had been arrested on 31st January 2024 in connection with the trafficking of approximately 698.819 kilograms of cannabis, a criminal case that remains pending before the Kahawa Law Courts. He further deposed that investigations linked the 3rd Respondent to Qanchora Galma Halake, an associate under investigation, whose lorry had been preserved after being found at the 3rd Respondent's premises. The Agency also traced financial transactions totalling Kshs. 534,000 sent by the 3rd Respondent to Mr. Halake between 2022 and 2023, which it relied on to support the forfeiture application. Submissions 57.The Applicant filed submissions dated 13th January 2026 in support of the Amended Originating Motion dated 13th June 2025 and argued that they had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the vehicles constituted proceeds of crime, having been acquired through or with funds generated from the Respondents' alleged narcotics trafficking activities. 58.The Applicant identified three issues for determination: whether the motor vehicles were liable to forfeiture; whether the Toyota Van should be excluded from the forfeiture orders; and liability for costs. Relying on Aboo v Assets Recovery Agency and Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party) [2023] KECA 1658 (KLR), they submitted that, although the legal burden of proof rested on them on a balance of probabilities, the Respondents assumed an evidential burden to satisfactorily explain the legitimate source of their assets. They contended that they had discharged their burden, whereas the Respondents had failed to provide credible explanations for the acquisition of the vehicles. 59.Regarding the 1st Respondent, the Applicant submitted that the Toyota Fielder was purchased with funds received from Angela Marashe Kimathi and Noel Lukose Ahono, who regularly deposited cash through M-Pesa agents before transferring it to the 1st Respondent. The Applicant argued that her claim that the vehicle had been financed through a loan was unsupported by her bank records, which showed insufficient funds. The Applicant further maintained that the 1st Respondent had financial dealings with persons linked to narcotics trafficking, including the 3rd Respondent, and emphasised that the Toyota Rumion containing cannabis was recovered from her residence. 60.In relation to the 2nd Respondent, the Applicant submitted that his vehicles were similarly acquired using proceeds of narcotics trafficking. They relied on the recovery of 182.15 kilograms of cannabis from the Toyota Rumion, which the 2nd Respondent admitted was his vehicle. The Applicant further contended that he received funds from persons allegedly involved in narcotics trafficking, including Ruth Atieno Ouma, was not registered for income tax, had failed to file tax returns, and relied on forged business permits to support his claimed business activities. They argued that his explanations regarding the acquisition of the Toyota Prado, Toyota Van, and Mitsubishi lorry were inconsistent with the financial evidence. 61.As regards the 3rd Respondent, the Applicant submitted that his Toyota Station Wagon was purchased using proceeds of crime. They relied on the fact that he had twice been arrested and charged with narcotics trafficking, lacked tax registration, and failed to establish the existence of a genuine livestock business, asserting that several livestock movement permits produced in his defence were forged or fabricated. The Applicant also relied on evidence showing that the 3rd Respondent received funds from the 1st and 2nd Respondents as well as from Qanchora Galma Halake, who was under investigation for narcotics-related offences. 62.On the Interested Party’s application seeking exclusion of the Toyota Van from forfeiture, the Applicant argued that the Interested Party had failed to establish that he was an innocent purchaser for value as required under Sections 93 and 94 of POCAMLA. They contended that the Interested Party had not demonstrated that he conducted due diligence, such as carrying out an NTSA search, which would have revealed the caveat registered against the vehicle. Accordingly, the Applicant maintained that the Interested Party had constructive notice of the restriction and was therefore not entitled to protection. 63.Finally, the Applicant submitted that costs should follow the event and prayed that the Respondents bear the costs of the amended Originating Motion, while the Interested Party bear the costs of the exclusion application. They urged the court to find that they had established their case on a balance of probabilities and to grant the forfeiture orders sought. 64.The 1st Respondent filed submissions dated 3rd February 2026 in opposition to the Applicant's Amended Originating Motion dated 13th June 2025, by relying on her Replying Affidavit dated 29th April 2025 and argued that the Applicant had failed to meet the legal threshold required for the grant of forfeiture orders. She prayed for the dismissal of the application with costs. 65.The 1st Respondent framed four issues for determination: whether the motor vehicle was liable for forfeiture; whether it should be excluded from preservation or forfeiture orders; whether the Applicant had discharged the evidentiary burden of proof; and who should bear the costs. She submitted that the motor vehicle was acquired legitimately through a sale agreement dated 7th June 2023, using funds from her duly licensed businesses, namely Philstep Bar and Mukuyu-ini Bar, and she provided business permits to support this claim. 66.Relying on Article 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property, the 1st Respondent argued that the Applicant had not established that the vehicle was directly or indirectly connected to any offence, nor had it shown intermingling, transformation, or conversion of proceeds from criminal activities. She maintained that she had neither knowledge of nor participation in any criminal activity, and the Applicant had not alleged or proven otherwise. 67.Addressing the nature of civil forfeiture, the 1st Respondent cited the decision in Aboo v Assets Recovery Agency; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party) [2023] KECA 1658 (KLR), which clarified that civil forfeiture is an action in rem against property, not dependent on the conviction of an individual. However, she argued that the Applicant was still required to trace the subject property to a specific unlawful activity. She noted that the vehicle was forfeited based on her being an accused person in a criminal matter, but she was no longer an accused, and there was no evidence connecting her to the 2nd or 3rd Respondents or to any drug trafficking. 68.The 1st Respondent emphasized that Sections 82 and 92 of POCAMLA require proof of a nexus between the property and crime, not mere conjecture. She cited Asset Recovery Agency v Omar [2024] KEHC 13496 (KLR), where the court declined forfeiture in the absence of such proof, and argued that the Applicant had failed to provide credible, specific, or direct evidence linking her motor vehicle to any criminal conduct. She contended that the application was founded on unsubstantiated suspicion and that forfeiting the vehicle would violate her constitutional rights under Articles 40 and 50. 69.On the standard of proof, the 1st Respondent submitted that the Applicant bore the burden of proving its case on a balance of probabilities, as established in Asset Recovery Agency v Bala [2022] KEHC 11829 (KLR). She argued that mere suspicion was insufficient and that the Applicant had not produced evidence to show her involvement with the other Respondents or in any illegal activities. She further noted that no contraband was recovered from her vehicle and that receiving money from different persons as a businessperson did not necessarily imply illegality. 70.Finally, the 1st Respondent submitted that costs should follow the event under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, and since the Applicant had failed to prove its case, the Applicant should bear the costs. She urged the court to dismiss the forfeiture application with costs. 71.The 2nd Respondent in his written submissions dated 17th June 2025 contested the application on both procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that all four vehicles registered in his name: KCP 5865 Toyota Rumion; KCZ 988R Toyota Prado; KCW 236E Toyota Land Cruiser; and KBH 208Q Mitsubishi Fuso were lawfully acquired through legitimate business activities and bank financing, and that the Applicant had failed to prove they were proceeds of crime. 72.The 2nd Respondent detailed the legitimate acquisition of each vehicle. He stated that he acquired his first vehicle, KCL 802S Toyota Fielder, in 2017 through an NCBA Bank loan, used it for transport and campaign logistics, and sold it after repaying the loan. The proceeds from that sale were used to purchase the Toyota Rumion in September 2023. He also acquired the Mitsubishi Lorry in September 2019 using income from watermelon sales and his shop, Misra Shop, which operated with valid business permits. The Toyota Land Cruiser was acquired in January 2020 through an NCBA loan, which he repaid using income from contracts with organizations such as Concern Worldwide, Red Cross, Action Against Hunger, and WHO, as evidenced by vehicle log sheets. The Toyota Prado was acquired in August 2020 through an Equity Bank loan, which he repaid using income from his other operational vehicles and financial support from his parents. 73.He argued that the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ under Section 2 of POCAMLA is prospective, not retrospective, and requires proof that property was derived from or connected to an offence. He noted that all four vehicles were acquired well before his arrest on 6th June 2024, and the Applicant had not specified when any alleged offence occurred. He submitted that the Applicant's bank statement evidence covered only the period from September 2020 to January 2024, thereby failing to establish a temporal link between the vehicles and any criminal activity. He maintained that the Applicant had not demonstrated intermingling, transformation, or conversion from previous criminal property. 74.Regarding the Toyota Rumion, which was found at the 1st Respondent's premises with suspected narcotics, the 2nd Respondent argued that he had no knowledge of its presence there or its alleged contents. He explained that he had entrusted the vehicle to a person known to his friend, the 3rd Respondent, based on a long-standing relationship of trust, and had no reason to suspect it would be used unlawfully. He submitted that mere ownership does not create criminal liability without proof of knowledge, participation, or benefit, and that the Applicant had not shown he was aware of or complicit in any misuse. 75.The 2nd Respondent further argued that the Applicant had failed to discharge its evidentiary burden under Section 92(1) of POCAMLA and Section 107 of the Evidence Act. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Pamela Aboo v ARA & another, Civil Appeal Number 452 of 2018, he submitted that the Applicant must establish a link between the property and specific unlawful conduct. He contended that the Applicant's reliance on bank statements and third-party transactions involving Ms. Ruth Atieno Ouma and Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry was insufficient, as neither individual was a party to the proceedings, and there was no evidence that the specific funds transferred were derived from drug trafficking or used to acquire his vehicles. 76.He also argued that the application violated his constitutional rights under Article 40 on the right to property and Article 50(1) on the right to a fair hearing. He submitted that the Applicant’s reliance on untested allegations against third parties amounted to guilt by association and deprived him of the opportunity to examine or confront the evidence against him. He emphasized that he had never been charged, arrested, or investigated for drug trafficking, and the Applicant had not proved he knowingly received proceeds of crime. 77.In conclusion, the 2nd Respondent submitted that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate that the four vehicles were derived from criminal conduct, and that the application was unsupported by evidence, procedurally defective, and constitutionally unsound. He prayed for the forfeiture application against him to be dismissed with costs. 78.The 3rd Respondent in his submissions dated 16th June 2025 argued that that the prayers sought by the Applicant for forfeiture of motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B, a Toyota Station Wagon did not establish that his earnings were derived from narcotics trafficking or other criminal activities. 79.He acknowledged that he was facing two pending narcotics-related cases at Kahawa Law Courts, MCCR No. E036/2024 and MCCR No. E067/2024, but emphasized that he had pleaded not guilty to both charges. He maintained that no narcotic drugs were recovered from his person, his residence, or any vehicle associated with him, and that his arrests occurred miles away from the locations where the alleged drugs were found. He relied on his Replying Affidavit dated 28th April 2025 to rebut and refute the averments made by the Applicant’s supporting affidavit. 80.The 3rd Respondent pointed out that the Applicant’s evidence confirmed that he had never sent any money to the 1st or 2nd Respondents, while the two Respondents had sent funds to him. He argued that he had sufficiently explained and justified all the transactions highlighted by the Applicant in his Replying Affidavit, and therefore the orders and declarations sought by the Applicant were unmerited. 81.He further submitted that any gaps in his case were attributable to the Applicant, as his residence had been ransacked and searched following his first arrest on 31st January 2025, during which critical documents related to his livestock, meat, and cereal businesses were confiscated and never accounted for. He noted that the Applicant had not filed any further affidavit to concede or rebut this claim. 82.In conclusion, the 3rd Respondent prayed that the preservation orders be vacated, the motor vehicle be restituted to him, and the application be dismissed with costs awarded in his favor. Analysis And Determination 83.Having considered the Amended Originating Motion 13th June 2025, the affidavits and submissions, the issues for determination are: -a.Whether the Applicant has established that Motor Vehicle Registration Nos. KBW 872T – Toyota Fielder, KCP 586S – Toyota Rumion, KCZ 988R – Toyota Prado, KCW 236E - Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up, KBH 208Q – Mitsubishi Fuso and KCC 510B – Toyota Station Wagon are proceeds of crime liable to forfeiture.b.Whether the forfeiture orders sought should issue.c.Who should bear the costs of the proceedings. Whether the Applicant has established that Motor Vehicle Registration Nos. KBW 872T Toyota Fielder, KCP 586S Toyota Rumion, KCZ 988R Toyota Prado, KCW 236E Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up, KBH 208Q Mitsubishi Fuso and KCC 510B Toyota Station Wagon are proceeds of crime liable to forfeiture, 84.The jurisdiction of this court to order forfeiture is donated by Sections 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA). Under Section 92(1), the court may order forfeiture where it is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the property concerned has been used in the commission of an offence or constitutes proceeds of crime. 85.Civil forfeiture proceedings are proceedings in rem, directed against property rather than against an individual. Consequently, the existence or absence of a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite to forfeiture. This principle was settled by the Court of Appeal in Aboo v Assets Recovery Agency; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party) [2023] KECA 1658 (KLR), where the court affirmed that: -“Proceedings under POCAMLA are civil in nature although the Act deals with the proceeds of criminal conduct. The objective of POCAMLA is not to indict, prosecute and convict criminals but rather to forfeit the proceeds of crime. This approach was explained by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Prophet vs National Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] (2) SACR 525 (CC):“(58) Civil forfeiture provides a unique remedy used as a measure to combat organised crime. It rests on the legal fiction that the property and not the owner has contravened the law. It does not require a conviction or even a criminal charge against the owner. This kind of forfeiture is in theory seen as remedial and not punitive. The general approach to forfeiture once the threshold of establishing that the property is an instrumentality of an offence has been met is to embark upon a proportionality enquiry – weighing the severity of the interference with individual rights to property against the extent to which the property was used for the purposes of the commission of the offence, bearing in mind the nature of the offence.” (Emphasis added)The standard of proof required is no more than proof on a balance of a preponderance of probabilities, that is to say, sufficient to show that the case of the party having the legal burden of proof is more likely than not to be true …All that the appellant was required to do was to show the legitimate source of the funds to discharge the reverse onus burden of prove.” 86.In Assets Recovery Agency v Quorandum Limited & 2 others [2018] KEHC 3765 (KLR), the court held as follows: -“In line with the above evidence and on a balance of probability, this Court can safely draw a conclusion that the property known as … was purchased by use of money unlawfully obtained. It is therefore a proceed of crime as defined under section 2 of POCAMLA and is liable for recovery by the Applicant. This transaction also squarely falls within the definition of proceeds of crime in the case of Schabir Shaik & Others (supra).” 87.The Applicant’s case is not based solely on the Respondents’ investigation for narcotics offences. Rather, it is supported by a comprehensive financial analysis conducted after preservation orders were obtained. The investigation traced numerous financial transactions between the Respondents and persons alleged to be involved in narcotics trafficking, including Angela Marashe Kimathi, Noel Lukose Ahono, Ruth Atieno Ouma, Halima Mohamed Henry and Sofia Adan. 88.The evidence further demonstrates that substantial sums of money flowed through the Respondents’ bank accounts and M-Pesa wallets, with no corresponding evidence of legitimate commercial activity. The Applicant also demonstrated that many of the deposits consisted of structured cash deposits, numerous small transactions, and immediate transfers between accounts, characteristics commonly associated with money laundering techniques intended to disguise the origin of illicit funds. 89.Regarding the 1st Respondent, the Applicant demonstrated that although she claimed to earn her livelihood from poultry farming and the operation of two bars, her financial records showed substantial deposits and transfers inconsistent with those declared sources of income. The evidence established that she purchased a motor vehicle, registration number KBW 872T, a Toyota Fielder, on 7th June 2023 for Kshs. 700,000, financed through her Equity Bank Account No. 0340190743168, from which Kshs. 620,000 was transferred, with Kshs. 80,000 paid in cash. Significantly, Kshs. 510,000 had been transferred from her M-Pesa account into the same bank account shortly before payment of the purchase price. 90.The Applicant further established that between March and June 2023, immediately before the acquisition of the motor vehicle, the 1st Respondent engaged in numerous high-value financial transactions that bore no apparent relationship to her stated business activities. During that period, she transferred Kshs. 1,335,000 to Ms. Safia Adan, the wife of the 3rd Respondent; Kshs. 4,600,630 to Ms. Halima Mohamed Henry, an associate of the 3rd Respondent; and Kshs. 796,000 directly to the 3rd Respondent. According to the Applicant’s investigations, those funds originated from Angela Marashe Kimathi and Noel Lukose Ahono, whom the 1st Respondent described as her distributors. 91.Although the 1st Respondent maintained that the motor vehicle was purchased with proceeds from her legitimate businesses, she produced only business permits and failed to provide audited financial statements, tax returns, sales records, inventory records, bank reconciliations, or any other documentary evidence demonstrating that her businesses generated sufficient income to finance the purchase or account for the substantial transactions reflected in her bank and M-Pesa records. In this court’s view, the mere production of business licences, without corresponding financial records, is insufficient to establish that the funds used to acquire the motor vehicle originated from lawful commercial activities. 92.This court is therefore satisfied that the Applicant established significant inconsistencies between the 1st Respondent’s declared sources of income and her actual financial dealings. Those inconsistencies, together with the unexplained movement of substantial funds through her accounts immediately before the acquisition of the motor vehicle, provide considerable support for the Applicant’s contention that the funds used to acquire the asset were not derived from legitimate business activities. 93.With respect to the 2nd Respondent, the Applicant established that he acquired several motor vehicles, namely KCP 586S Toyota Rumion, KCZ 988R Toyota Prado, KCW 236E Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up, and KBH 208Q Mitsubishi Fuso, within a relatively short period, without demonstrating a legitimate source of income capable of financing those acquisitions. Although the 2nd Respondent attributed the purchases to proceeds from farming, transport contracts and bank financing, the financial records produced by the Applicant painted a different picture. The evidence showed that his NCBA Bank Account No. 3631520051 received a loan disbursement of Kshs. 2,446,161.17 on 18th September 2020, part of which was applied towards the transfer of motor vehicles KCW 597H and KCW 236E, although one of the payments was subsequently reversed. The Applicant further demonstrated that the loan proceeds were not fully utilised in the acquisition of the vehicles and that the loan was substantially repaid within a relatively short period, thereby raising legitimate questions regarding the true source of the funds. 94.The Applicant further established that the 2nd Respondent’s Equity Bank Account No. 0840179854859 received Kshs. 13,500,000 from Ruth Atieno Ouma, whom the Applicant described as a convicted narcotics trafficker. Part of those funds was traced to the purchase of the motor vehicle KCZ 988R, a Toyota Prado. In addition, the 2nd Respondent’s M-Pesa Account No. 0740496868 received Kshs. 1,111,000 from the same individual, which was subsequently utilised for loan repayments, M-Shwari deposits and transfers to Halima Mohamed Henry. Another M-Pesa account belonging to the 2nd Respondent similarly received funds from the 3rd Respondent before transferring substantial sums to Halima Mohamed Henry. The Applicant also demonstrated that the business permits relied upon by the 2nd Respondent to support his alleged business activities were not genuine, as they were shown to belong to a different entity. 95.This court further notes material inconsistencies regarding the acquisition of motor vehicle KCP 586S Toyota Rumion. Although the 2nd Respondent asserted that he financed its purchase through the sale of motor vehicle KCL 802S Toyota Fielder, the documentary evidence reveals that the Toyota Rumion was purchased on 14th September 2023, whereas the Toyota Fielder was sold later on 28th October 2023. That chronology substantially weakens the explanation advanced by the 2nd Respondent and suggests that the vehicle was acquired using other unexplained funds. 96.This court also notes the uncontested evidence that motor vehicle KCP 586S, a Toyota Rumion, was recovered at the 1st Respondent’s residence while transporting approximately 182.15 kilograms of cannabis, with additional narcotic drugs recovered from the same premises. The 2nd Respondent’s explanation that he had merely lent the vehicle to another person does not satisfactorily account for its use in transporting such a substantial quantity of narcotic drugs. While that explanation may be relevant in criminal proceedings, the proceedings at hand concern the property itself. The issue before this court is whether the vehicle was used in unlawful activity or constitutes proceeds of crime. On the evidence presented, this court is satisfied that motor vehicle KCP 586S was directly connected with narcotics trafficking. 97.Regarding the motor vehicles KCZ 988R Toyota Prado, KCW 236E Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up and KBH 208Q Mitsubishi Fuso, the 2nd Respondent explained that they were acquired through bank financing, instalment payments and proceeds from his farming and retail businesses. However, these explanations were inconsistent with the financial records before this court and were unsupported by audited accounts, tax records or other credible documentary evidence demonstrating that his businesses generated sufficient income to finance the purchases. The Applicant further established that the 2nd Respondent was not registered for income tax, had failed to file tax returns and relied on forged business permits in support of his alleged business activities. 98.This court also notes the Applicant’s contention that the purported sale of the motor vehicle KCW 236E to the Interested Party was a sham transaction. The 2nd Respondent admitted that he neither met the alleged purchaser nor executed a sale agreement, and that the purchase price was allegedly paid to a third party. The Interested Party likewise failed to demonstrate that he was an innocent purchaser for value within the meaning of Sections 93 and 94 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, as he failed to show that he conducted due diligence, including an NTSA search, which would have disclosed the caveat registered against the vehicle. The Applicant further pointed out that Susan Wangui Kimotho, the alleged broker in the transactions, declined to record a statement despite admitting that she acted as a motor vehicle broker. 99.Having considered the evidence as a whole, this court is satisfied that the Applicant established a continuing financial relationship between the 2nd Respondent and persons under investigation or convicted of narcotics-related offences. The explanations advanced by the 2nd Respondent remained unsupported by credible financial and business records demonstrating that the impugned motor vehicles were acquired through legitimate means. 100.The evidence against the 3rd Respondent is equally persuasive. Although he maintained that his income came from livestock trading and brokerage, the Applicant demonstrated that several of the livestock movement permits relied on to support those businesses were fabricated, unverifiable, lacked official authentication, or had been issued to third parties. The investigations further revealed extensive financial transactions linking the 3rd Respondent to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, as well as to Halima Mohamed Henry, Safia Adan and Qanchora Galma Halake, thereby placing him at the centre of a network of suspicious financial dealings. 101.The Applicant’s financial analysis disclosed that the 3rd Respondent’s M-Pesa Account No. 0726177781 received Kshs. 346,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 190,000 from the 2nd Respondent. The account also recorded 124 transactions with Halima Mohamed Henry, through which Kshs. 1,562,850 was received and Kshs. 487,730 was transferred, as well as 94 transactions with Safia Adan involving amounts ranging from Kshs. 150 to Kshs. 250,000. Similarly, M-Pesa Account No. 0724986957 received Kshs. 450,000 from the 1st Respondent and Kshs. 6,000 from the 2nd Respondent, and reflected numerous transactions with Halima Mohamed Henry and Safia Adan involving substantial sums. These transactions were consistent with the Applicant’s assertion that the 3rd Respondent was financially interconnected with the other Respondents and their associates. 102.Although the 3rd Respondent contended that the funds received were legitimate payments arising from livestock trading and brokerage services, he failed to produce invoices, contracts, delivery notes, business records, tax returns, or any other documentary evidence capable of substantiating those claims. Equally, he did not satisfactorily explain the source of funds used to acquire motor vehicle registration number KCC 510B, and his financial records disclosed no payment to the alleged vendor. While he attributed the absence of supporting documentation to its seizure by officers of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations during a search of his residence, that explanation was insufficient to displace the Applicant’s evidence, particularly in light of the finding that several of the livestock movement permits relied upon were fabricated, lacked official stamps, had been issued to third parties, or originated from foreign jurisdictions. In the absence of credible documentary evidence demonstrating a lawful source of the purchase funds, the Court is unable to accept the 3rd Respondent’s explanation and finds that the Applicant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that his financial dealings were inconsistent with his declared sources of income. 103.This court also notes that the 3rd Respondent faces pending charges of narcotics trafficking. Although the court fully recognises the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed under Article 50(2)(a), those pending proceedings are not the basis for seeking forfeiture. 104.This court agrees with the submission that civil forfeiture proceedings do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. What is required is proof on a balance of probabilities. 105.Having carefully evaluated the totality of the evidence, this court is satisfied that the Applicant has established a consistent pattern of unexplained wealth, structured cash deposits, movement of funds between known associates, use of third-party accounts, lack of corresponding legitimate income, false or unverifiable supporting documentation, and direct links between some of the subject vehicles and narcotics trafficking. 106.The Respondents’ explanations, though elaborate, largely remained uncorroborated by documentary evidence capable of rebutting the Applicant’s financial analysis. Their explanations amounted largely to assertions unsupported by audited financial statements, tax compliance records, verifiable business accounts or other credible commercial records demonstrating lawful acquisition of the assets. 107.This court is guided by Assets Recovery Agency v Fisher Rohan and Miller Delores, Supreme Court of Jamaica, Claim No 2007 HCV003259, where it was held that: -“(17)Even though these proceedings are quasi Criminal in nature there is an evidential burden of proof on the Defendant. It is incumbent on them to demonstrate evidentially how they lawfully came into possession of the assets seized.” 108.In Assets Recovery Agency v Green & Others [2005] EWHC 3168 (Admin), a decision frequently cited by Kenyan courts in civil recovery proceedings, it was held that: -“In civil proceedings for recovery under part 5 of the Act the Director need not allege the commission of any specific criminal offence but must set out the matter that are alleged to constitute the particular kind or kinds of unlawful conduct by or in return for which the property was obtained.” 109.This court is further persuaded by the reasoning in In Assets Recovery Agency v Pamela Aboo; Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party) [2018] KEHC 1845 (KLR), the court emphasized that: -“ 63.Forfeiture proceedings are Civil in nature and that is why the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities … 64.The proceedings before this court are to determine the criminal origins of the property in issue and are not a criminal prosecution against the Respondent where presumption of innocence is applicable. In the case of ARA & Others vs Audrene Samantha Rowe & Others Civil Division claim No 2012 HCV 02120 the Court of Appeal stated:“....that in deciding whether the matters alleged constituted unlawful conduct when a civil recovery order is being made is to be decided on a balance of probability. Civil recovery proceedings are directed at the seizure of property and not the convicting of any individual and thus there was no reason to apply the criminal standard of proof.,..” 110.This court finds that Applicant has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that Motor Vehicle Registration Nos. KBW 872T Toyota Fielder, KCP 586S Toyota Rumion, KCZ 988R Toyota Prado, KCW 236E Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up, KBH 208Q Mitsubishi Fuso, and KCC 510B Toyota Station Wagon constitute proceeds of crime within the meaning of Sections 2, 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act. Whether the forfeiture orders sought should issue 111.The court must exercise caution before depriving a person of constitutionally protected property rights under Article 40 of the Constitution. However, the Respondents’ constitutional right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution cannot protect property that has been demonstrated to constitute proceeds of crime. Article 40(6) of the Constitution provide: -The rights under this Article do not extend to any property that has been found to have been unlawfully acquired. 112.The Court of Appeal in Aboo v Assets Recovery Agency (supra) emphasized that: -“However, it must be emphasized that only lawfully obtained property enjoys full constitutional protection as clearly provided under article 40 (6) of the Constitution. For this reason, civil forfeiture regime does not violate the right to property because the Constitution does not protect the ownership or possession of the proceeds of crime or unexplained wealth. Even if civil forfeiture infringes the right to property, such an infringement would be a proportionate response to the fundamental problem, which it addresses, namely that no one should be allowed to benefit from his or her wrongdoing. A remedy of this kind is justified to induce members of the public to act with vigilance in relation to goods they own or possess to inhibit crime. It thus serves a legitimate public purpose. Such an infringement no doubt satisfies the limitation clause in article 24 of the Constitution. Therefore, because the proceedings are constitutionally permissible, any indignity from the forfeiture of the instrumentalities or proceeds of crime or unexplained wealth does not violate the Constitution. It is, for example, akin to the exposure of anyone who is subject to lawful criminal proceedings.Confiscation measures may be applied not only to the direct proceeds of crime but also to property, including any incomes and other indirect benefits, obtained by converting or transforming the direct proceeds of crime or intermingling them with other, possibly lawful, assets. Confiscation measures may be applied not only to persons directly suspected of criminal offences but also to any third parties who hold ownership rights without the requisite bona fide with a view to disguising their wrongful role in amassing the wealth in question.” 113.This court therefore concludes that the Applicant has satisfied the statutory threshold for forfeiture and the Amended Originating Motion dated 13th June 2025 is merited. 114.Accordingly, this court makes the following orders: -a.A declaration is hereby issued that motor vehicles KBW 872T Toyota Fielder, KCP 586S Toyota Rumion, KCZ 988R Toyota Prado, KCW 236E Toyota HZJ79R Van/Pick-up, KBH 208Q Mitsubishi Fuso and KCC 510B Toyota Station Wagon constitute proceeds of crime within the meaning of Sections 2, 90 and 92 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.b.The aforesaid motor vehicles are hereby forfeited to the Government of the Republic of Kenya.c.The Director General of the National Transport and Safety Authority shall transfer the proprietary interest in the said motor vehicles to the Assets Recovery Agency and issue the necessary registration documents accordingly.d.The Respondents shall jointly and severally bear costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY 2026.R.E. OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of: -Mr. Wambua -For the PlaintiffMr. Rajoro -For the 1st RespondentMr. Guantai -For the 2nd RespondentMr. Chacha Mwita -For the 3rd RespondentFor the Interested Party- AbsentAdan/ Minah - C /A