The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has secured court orders for the forfeiture of assets worth Sh207.7 million belonging to Andrew Biketi Musuya, a former accountant with the Trans Nzoia County Government.
The orders were issued by Milimani Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Court Judge Rose Ougo in a judgment delivered on October 8, 2026.
The judge found that the former accountant, who served in the county government and its Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, had failed to satisfactorily explain the disproportionate difference between his known legitimate sources of income and assets worth Sh207,741,928.
According to the EACC, the assets earmarked for forfeiture include prime properties in Mombasa and Bungoma counties valued at Sh150,209,000.
They comprise two five-storey apartment blocks and a five-bedroom townhouse in Mtwapa, Mombasa County, as well as seven undeveloped parcels of land in Mombasa and Bungoma counties.
The court also ordered the forfeiture of bank and M-Pesa deposits totalling Sh53,532,910 and two motor vehicles valued at Sh4 million.
The commission said its investigations established that the former county employee acquired the assets and accumulated the funds between January 1, 2013, and October 31, 2018.
The EACC initially valued the assets under investigation at Sh289,932,910. This comprised bank and M-Pesa deposits worth Sh53,532,910, landed properties valued at Sh226.8 million and motor vehicles worth Sh9.6 million.
“The commission instituted proceedings under Section 55 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) to recover Sh284,087,664 in assets deemed disproportionate to his known legitimate sources of income, which he could not satisfactorily explain,” the EACC said in a statement.
However, the court found that the former accountant had failed to satisfactorily account for Sh207,741,928 of the wealth under scrutiny and ordered that amount forfeited to the State.
Section 55 of ACECA empowers the EACC to institute civil proceedings in court to recover unexplained wealth where a person’s assets are disproportionate to their known legitimate sources of income.
Under Section 56 of the Act, the court may also issue preservation orders to prevent the transfer or concealment of property while investigations or recovery proceedings are ongoing.
In unexplained wealth proceedings, the EACC must establish its case on a balance of probabilities.
Once it demonstrates that a person’s assets are disproportionate to their known legitimate income, the burden shifts to the person to satisfactorily explain how the wealth was acquired.
Such civil proceedings do not require a criminal conviction for the court to order the forfeiture of unexplained assets.
“EACC remains committed to protecting public property and ensuring that public resources are preserved for the benefit of all Kenyans,” the commission said.