The High Court in Nairobi has ordered the forfeiture of assets worth hundreds of millions of shillings belonging to a senior lands official, his wife, and two companies linked to them, after finding that the wealth was not satisfactorily explained.
Justice Benjamin Mwikya Musyoki, sitting at the Milimani High Court’s Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, ruled that Felix Mecha Nyakundi, a Principal Land Registrar, his spouse Stellah Nyaboke Otwori, The Bantu Hotel & Resort Company Limited, and Festemagra Investment Limited had failed to account for properties and cash transactions valued at over Sh467 million.
The judgment, delivered on September 18, 2026, followed an originating motion filed by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) on May 19, 2025, under Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
The EACC had sought answers regarding Sh467,764,517.60 transacted through bank and M-Pesa accounts, landed properties valued at over Sh176 million, three motor vehicles, and Sh4,260,000 in cash seized during a search in March 2024.
The commission’s investigator, Charity Muniu, told the court that Nyakundi, during his tenure as a Land Registrar in various stations including Kilifi, had exploited his position to allocate public land to his wife, who was not among the verified beneficiaries of settlement schemes.
The court heard that Nyaboke was allocated nine plots, six in Kilifi/Chakama Phase II, one in Malindi/Chakama Phase I, and two in Mavueni B Settlement Scheme contrary to the policy of one parcel per eligible household.
The EACC also established that between January 2013 and March 2024, Nyakundi earned a net salary of Sh5,398,438.75 and allowances of Sh2,292,860 from his employment amounts that could not account for the vast wealth accumulated by him and his family.
The court heard that the 3rd defendant, The Bantu Hotel & Resort, was incorporated in February 2017 with Nyakundi and his daughter Corazon as directors, while the 4th defendant, Festemagra Investment, was registered in February 2015 with Nyaboke and Corazon as shareholders.
The assets forfeited to the State include several parcels of land and motor vehicles linked to the respondents.
They include C.R. 41556 (L.R. 9122/57), C.R. 41557 (L.R. 9122/58), Lamu Mainland/Block I (Bargoni)/795, Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block 3/47 and L.R. 6845/1136 (I.R. 203944), all registered in the name of Nyakundi.
Also forfeited is Mombasa/Block X/105, jointly owned by Nyakundi and Nyaboke, nine parcels of land in Kilifi Chakama Phase II and Mavueni B Settlement Scheme registered to Nyaboke, and four Nairobi/Block 105 properties registered under The Bantu Hotel & Resort.
The court further ordered the forfeiture of three motor vehicles KDG 086B, KCW 500Y and KCG 098Y registered in Nyaboke’s name.
The court also ordered the forfeiture of funds in several bank and M-Pesa accounts, including Sh50,398,428 in Nyakundi’s Co-operative Bank account, Sh16,323,000 in his NCBA account, Sh27,760,908 and Sh9,334,194 in his two M-Pesa lines, Sh88,088,547.86 in an Equity Bank account held by Nyaboke, and Sh4,260,000 seized during the EACC search.
In his ruling, Justice Musyoki held that the EACC had established a prima facie case that the defendants had unexplained wealth.
“The key objective of forfeiture proceedings principally is to cripple or inhibit criminal activity,” the judge said.
“The law is not strictly looking at direct punishment of the property owner but rather, it is looking at the guilty property and not the property owner’s guilt or innocence in the strict criminal sense.”
The judge ruled that while the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants were not public officers, they were directly linked to the 1st defendant and were active in acquiring the properties, making them subject to scrutiny under Section 55 of the ACECA.
Nyakundi had argued that he had acquired the properties through legitimate means, including a timber logging and farming business, a stationery supply enterprise, and salary savings.
He claimed that some properties were inherited from his father and that others were acquired before the period of interest.
Nyaboke, on her part, claimed that the Kilifi and Mavueni plots were government allocations and that the motor vehicles were acquired from profits of the family businesses.
However, Justice Musyoki ruled that the defendants failed to provide supporting documentation including financial records, sale agreements, and proof of business operations. He dismissed the logging permits and lease agreements as “not proof of payments or income from the relevant business.”
The judge also found that the EACC had satisfactorily explained some properties, which were excluded from the forfeiture order, including Malindi/Chakama Phase I/846, which was acquired before the period of interest, and LR 6845/2799 – IR 200522, which was acquired in 2012.
The court further found that Nyakundi, as a Land Registrar, used his position to allocate land to his wife in settlement schemes meant for deserving beneficiaries.
“The plaintiff has demonstrated and I do agree that the 1st defendant used his position as a Land Registrar to have land allocated to himself and his spouse in circumstances that are reasonably suspected to be abuse of office which is a corrupt conduct,” Justice Musyoki ruled.
The judge rejected Nyakundi’s argument that the land adjudication process was foolproof, stating that the absence of objections during adjudication did not insulate the resultant titles from legal challenges.
Justice Musyoki held that where separation of legitimate and illegitimate assets is not possible, the defendant must suffer the consequences.
“That is the essence of forfeiture proceedings as the aim is to prevent the criminal enterprise from enjoying the fruits of their illegal or criminal activities,” he said, citing the case of Kinthia & another v Attorney General & 2 others.
The court declined to order the defendants to pay the full Sh467 million in addition to forfeiting the properties, ruling that the transactions in the accounts were largely absorbed into the landed properties and businesses. Instead, the judge ordered the forfeiture of the identified assets and the credit balances in the specified accounts.
“Having evaluated and considered that the said transactions are largely part of the properties and although I have declared some of the transactions unexplained, in my view, I do not think that it would be fair to order the defendants to pay the said sums in addition to forfeiture of the identified assets. I am minded to forfeit what has been traced rather than going for restitution in terms proposed in prayer 5, 6 and 8 of the originating summons,” said the judge.
In his final orders, Justice Musyoki declared the funds held in the specified bank and M-Pesa accounts as unexplained assets and ordered their forfeiture to the Government of Kenya through the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
The judge also ordered the forfeiture of the listed landed properties, directing the Chief Lands Registrar and the respective County Land Registrars to facilitate the transfers.
He further declared the three motor vehicles unexplained assets and ordered their forfeiture, with the Director General of the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) directed to ensure compliance.
Justice Musyoki also ordered the defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the suit.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
