Cecilia Nyathira Wanjiru, Roba Hassan Boru Abdinur and Mohammed Juma Guyo believed they had mounted a compelling defence against the attempt by the government to seize their vehicles. They were wrong.
The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) moved to the High Court in February 2025, seeking orders for the three to forfeit six vehicles, saying they had been acquired from proceeds of marijuana trade.
Investigators trailed some of the money to Ruth Atieno Ouma, whom the agency described as a convicted drug trafficker, though her conviction was quashed on appeal.
Wanjiru, Abdinur and Guyo insisted the vehicles had been acquired using income from legitimate businesses.
Wanjiru said she was a poultry farmer who also operated Philsteph and Mukuyu-ini Bars.
Boru said his wealth came from Misra Shop, watermelon farming, motor vehicle hire, transport contracts and a textile wholesale and retail business he operated with his wife.
Guyo told the court his income was from livestock trade, meat distribution, grain, rice and sugar brokerage, taxi operations as well as an interior design and furniture resale business run with his wife.
The High Court, however, sided with the ARA, ordering the National Transport and Safety Authority to transfer ownership of the six vehicles to the State, in a decision that underscores a key principle in civil asset recovery cases: it is not enough to demonstrate that you have a business as a source of income.
The owner must also produce credible financial records showing the business generated sufficient legitimate income to acquire the assets in question.
Justice Rose Edwina Atieno Ougo said the ARA established a consistent pattern of unexplained wealth, structured cash deposits, movement of funds between known associates and use of third-party accounts.
There was no corresponding legitimate income, supporting documentation was unverified and direct links between some of the vehicles and narcotics trafficking were established.
“The respondents’ explanations, though elaborate, largely remained uncorroborated by documentary evidence,” Justice Ougo said in a decision rendered on July 14, 2026.
“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.”
The vehicles that were ultimately forfeited were a Toyota Prado, Toyota Fielder, Toyota Rumion, Toyota HZJ79R pick-up, Toyota Station Wagon and a Mitsubishi Fuso truck.
In an affidavit by Mohamed Hussein, a police officer attached to the ARA, the fateful day was on July 6, 2024, when the agency was alerted that Abdinur and Guyo had been arrested on suspicion of transporting narcotics from Wanjiru’s home.
Abdinur and Guyo would lead police officers to Wanjiru’s houses in Kiganjo, Makongeni, Thika, where a search of the premises and the Toyota Rumion found 38 bales of “dry plant material packed in six sacks”.
Upon analysis, the substance turned out to be Cannabis sativa. An additional bale was found in Wanjiru’s house, the ARA said.
The substances were 182.15 kilos and 1.95 kilo, respectively. The market value for the cannabis was more than Sh5.5 million.
The judgment stripped Wanjiru of her Toyota Fielder, Boru of four vehicles – Toyota Rumion, Toyota Prado, Toyota HZJ79R pick-up and Mitsubishi Fuso – and Guyo of his Toyota Station Wagon.
Wanjiru said she bought the car using savings from her poultry business and two bars, supplemented by bank loans. She produced business permits.
The court, however, found that she failed to provide audited accounts, tax returns, sales records, inventories or bank reconciliations to prove the businesses generated enough income to buy the car.
It also found unexplained cash movements through her M-Pesa and bank accounts immediately before the purchase.
Abdinur said he acquired the four vehicles using proceeds from Misra Shop, watermelon farming, transport contracts, textile trading and bank financing.
He maintained that one vehicle was sold to fund the purchase of another and that asset-financing loans paid for the rest.
The court found inconsistencies in his explanation, including the Toyota Rumion being bought before the vehicle was allegedly sold to finance it.
It also cited Sh13.5 million received from Mrs Ouma, questioned the rapid loan repayments, found no tax records or audited accounts and ruled that the business permits he relied on were forged.
Mr Guyo said his Toyota Station Wagon was bought using income from livestock trading, meat distribution, grain, rice and sugar brokerage, taxi operations and an interior design and furniture resale business.
He produced livestock movement permits and insisted the documents seized during police raids would have further supported his case. The court was unconvinced, finding no audited accounts, tax records, invoices or other commercial records linking the businesses to the purchase of the vehicle.
It also found no evidence of payment to the alleged seller and held that the documents produced did not satisfactorily explain the source of the funds used to acquire the car.
The ARA said the woman and two men did not operate any legitimate businesses capable of generating sufficient income to acquire the motor vehicles.
“Analyses of their bank accounts disclosed substantial cash deposits linked to persons suspected of engaging in narcotics trafficking, including one Ruth Atieno Ouma,” the court said.
Mrs Ouma and her husband, Tom Ouma Aero, had been sentenced to 25 years in prison and fined Sh33.2 million each after being convicted of trafficking cannabis in 2024.
However, High Court judge Diana Kavedza quashed their convictions and set them free on January 27, 2025 after she found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the couple had engaged in drug trafficking.
In the case against the three, the court insisted that ARA’s was not a criminal trial on their involvement in drug trafficking, whose standard of proof was beyond reasonable doubt.The judge noted that all that was required of them was to demonstrate how they lawfully came into possession of the assets in question.
