The High Court has ordered the forfeiture of assets valued at KSh426.85 million linked to former Principal Land Registrar Felix Mecha Nyakundi, his wife Stellah Nyaboke Otwori and companies associated with the family. The assets include the Bantu Hotel and Resort in Nairobi, apartments, land, three vehicles and money held in bank and M-Pesa accounts.
Highlights
- Assets worth KSh426.85 million have been ordered forfeited to the State.
- The Bantu Hotel and four Nairobi properties were valued at KSh107.7 million.
- EACC said the family acquired assets worth KSh771.89 million between 2013 and 2024.
- Nyakundi’s monthly salary during the period ranged from KSh69,660 to KSh115,630.
- The case was a civil unexplained-wealth proceeding, not a criminal conviction.
Main Story
Court Orders Forfeiture of Family Assets
The High Court has directed the forfeiture of several properties, vehicles and available funds connected to former Principal Land Registrar Felix Mecha Nyakundi and his family.
Justice Benjamin Mwikya Musyoki issued the judgment on September 18, 2026, following proceedings brought by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) under the unexplained-assets provisions of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
The case involved Nyakundi, his wife Stellah Nyaboke Otwori and two companies linked to the family.
Bantu Hotel Among Major Assets
One of the biggest assets affected by the ruling is The Bantu Hotel and Resort Company Limited.
Four Nairobi properties registered under the company were valued by EACC at approximately KSh107.7 million.
The company told the court that the properties had been purchased and developed using money generated through its hospitality operations, alongside financial support from another family-linked company.
It also pointed to transactions exceeding KSh155 million during the period under investigation.
However, the court found that the explanation did not sufficiently account for how the properties were acquired and developed.
Court Questions Supporting Documents
Justice Musyoki noted gaps in the evidence presented to support the source of funds.
Among the concerns was a claimed transfer of KSh69.78 million for which the court was not provided with adequate documentation.
The court also found that some receipts presented as evidence raised questions. Some were dated before the hotel company was incorporated, while others fell outside the period under investigation or were not issued in the company’s name.
The lack of clear documentation showing the purchase prices of some of the properties also weakened the explanation presented by the defendants.
Properties, Apartments and Land Forfeited
The assets affected by the judgment extend beyond the Nairobi hotel properties.
They include LR 6845/1136, IR 203944, described in the court records as a five-storey commercial building with 24 units.
Other properties listed include Mombasa/Block X/105, Lamu Mainland/Block 1 (Bargoni)/795 and Gatuanyanga/Ngoliba Block 3/47, as well as parcels located within the Kilifi Chakama and Mavueni settlement schemes.
The ruling also covers other identified assets linked to the family.
EACC Questioned KSh467.76 Million in Transactions
EACC’s investigation covered transactions amounting to KSh467.76 million that moved through various bank accounts and M-Pesa numbers associated with the respondents.
The commission also identified properties worth KSh287.51 million, vehicles valued at KSh20.06 million and KSh4.26 million in cash recovered from residences.
Taken together, EACC said the assets acquired between January 2013 and March 2024 amounted to KSh771.89 million.
According to the commission, Nyakundi’s gross monthly salary increased from KSh69,660 in 2013 to KSh115,630 in 2024.
EACC said the respondents were only able to satisfactorily account for assets worth KSh58.17 million.
Court Avoids Double Recovery
Although EACC had challenged the large amount of money that passed through the accounts, the court did not order the respondents to repay the entire KSh467.76 million in addition to forfeiting the properties.
Justice Musyoki found that a significant portion of the money had apparently been channelled into the businesses and properties already identified in the case.
Ordering repayment of the transaction value while also taking the traced assets would therefore result in overlapping recovery.
Instead, the court ordered the available balances in the affected accounts to be forfeited to the government, alongside the separately identified properties.
Three Vehicles Also Forfeited
Three vehicles registered in Otwori’s name were also declared unexplained assets.
They are registration numbers KDG 086B, KCW 500Y and KCG 098Y.
The National Transport and Safety Authority was directed to facilitate their forfeiture.
The defendants were further ordered to jointly and individually meet the costs incurred by EACC in pursuing the case.
Civil Case, Not Criminal Conviction
The judgment does not amount to a criminal conviction against Nyakundi, Otwori or the companies involved.
The proceedings were civil in nature and focused on whether the respondents could explain the acquisition of assets considered disproportionate to their known legitimate income.
The court specifically noted that the defendants had not been accused in the proceedings of committing a particular criminal offence.
The ruling nevertheless gives EACC another significant victory in its efforts to recover public resources through unexplained-wealth proceedings.
The ruling offers a reminder that when wealth cannot be convincingly linked to legitimate income, the courts can require those assets to be surrendered even where no criminal conviction is involved.
