The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has secured a court order for the forfeiture of assets worth Sh207.7 million belonging to former government accountant Andrew Biketi Musuya over wealth the court found he had failed to satisfactorily explain.
In a judgment delivered on October 8, 2026, Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Court Judge Rose Ougo ordered assets valued at Sh207,741,928 to be forfeited to the Government of Kenya.
Musuya previously worked as an accountant at the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation and later as a principal accountant in the Trans Nzoia County Government.
The ruling followed an investigation into his financial transactions and asset acquisitions between January 1, 2013, and October 31, 2018, when investigators established that he had accumulated substantial property, bank deposits and vehicles.
According to reports by The Eastleigh Voice, Kenyans.co.ke and the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, the commission had sought to recover assets it considered disproportionate to Musuya’s known legitimate sources of income. The court ultimately ordered the forfeiture of assets valued at more than Sh207 million.
Properties, bank deposits and vehicles forfeited
The forfeited assets include two five-storey apartment blocks and a five-bedroom townhouse in Mtwapa, Mombasa County, alongside seven undeveloped parcels of land in Mombasa and Bungoma counties.
The properties were valued at approximately Sh150.2 million, making them the largest component of the recovery.
The court order also covers bank and mobile-money deposits amounting to approximately Sh53.5 million, as well as two motor vehicles valued at Sh4 million.
The assets were part of a wider portfolio that investigators said Musuya accumulated during the period under investigation.
EACC established that the total value of the assets identified during its investigations was Sh289.9 million. This included land and buildings valued at Sh226.8 million, bank and M-Pesa deposits of Sh53.5 million, and motor vehicles worth Sh9.6 million.
The commission subsequently filed proceedings under Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, seeking recovery of Sh284.1 million in assets it considered disproportionate to Musuya’s known legitimate income.
The court found that he had failed to satisfactorily account for Sh207.7 million and ordered the corresponding assets to be forfeited to the State.
Court rejects explanations for wealth
During the proceedings, Musuya offered several explanations for how he acquired his wealth, including income from a club, maize farming, loans, consultancy work and rental properties.
However, the court found that the explanations did not adequately establish how the claimed income had financed the assets under investigation.
In assessing the income attributed to the club, the court found that the figures presented represented gross sales rather than net earnings available for investment.
The court also found insufficient evidence linking the proceeds allegedly earned from maize farming to the purchase or development of the properties.
Claims involving loans and consultancy earnings similarly failed to provide a satisfactory account of the wealth, according to the reported court findings.
The case illustrates the distinction between demonstrating that a possible source of income exists and establishing that the income was actually earned, received and used to acquire the assets in question.
Under Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, the EACC can seek civil recovery of unexplained assets where it establishes that a person’s property is disproportionate to their known legitimate sources of income and the person fails to provide a satisfactory explanation.
Such proceedings concern the recovery of assets and are distinct from criminal prosecution. The forfeiture order should therefore not, on its own, be interpreted as a criminal conviction.
A wider investigation into public-sector wealth
Musuya’s case dates back to investigations reported in 2019, when questions were raised about the value of assets linked to the former county accountant.
At the time, reports indicated that investigators were examining properties, financial deposits and transactions involving companies associated with him.
The subsequent court proceedings focused on whether the assets accumulated during the specified period could be explained by his known legitimate income.
The final judgment represents a significant outcome for the commission’s asset-recovery efforts, allowing the State to recover property and funds after the court found that the wealth had not been satisfactorily accounted for.
However, the amount ordered forfeited was lower than the total value of assets initially identified by investigators. EACC had sought recovery of approximately Sh284.1 million, while the court ordered forfeiture of Sh207.7 million.
The difference underscores the importance of the evidence presented for each asset and the court’s assessment of which property could lawfully be recovered.
EACC reiterates commitment to protecting public resources
Following the ruling, EACC reiterated its commitment to protecting public property and ensuring that resources are preserved for the benefit of Kenyans.
The commission has increasingly relied on civil asset-recovery proceedings to pursue property it believes has been acquired through unexplained wealth, alongside its investigations and prosecution of suspected corruption offences.
The approach is intended to prevent individuals from retaining assets where they cannot satisfactorily account for their acquisition, while requiring the commission to establish the legal basis for recovery before the court.
For Trans Nzoia County, the case also places renewed attention on accountability among public officials entrusted with managing public finances.
The ruling does not establish that every asset accumulated by a public servant is unlawfully acquired. Rather, it demonstrates the legal consequences that can follow when a court finds that the evidence and explanations presented do not satisfactorily account for particular wealth.
With the forfeiture order now secured, the case adds to the EACC’s record of pursuing asset recovery through the courts. Its wider significance lies in the principle that public officials and other individuals must be able to account for wealth where the law requires an explanation of a disproportion between assets and legitimate income.
