Court Rejects Kenya Bid to Seize KSh35.6M in Burundi-Linked Account

Cross-border business

Kenya's Court of Appeal has rejected an Assets Recovery Agency bid to forfeit KSh35.6M held in an I&M Bank account linked to a Burundi business, leaving the High Court decision intact.

Standard reported on 1 October that a three-judge bench dismissed ARA's appeal and upheld the High Court's June 2025 decision. The case concerned US$274,369.56 held in an account belonging to EIS Afrika Group Limited, a Kenyan company affiliated with EIS Company SPRL in Burundi.

The court was deciding whether the State had proved that the money was proceeds of crime. It was not a criminal prosecution against the company.

What was the dispute about?

The case began after US$350,000 was transferred into EIS Afrika's account in March 2024. ARA obtained preservation orders and later sought forfeiture of the remaining US$274,369.56.

The High Court record shows the company said the money was connected to a civil-engineering contract involving work at the Kavimvira border post in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The company said funds were routed through Kenya to buy equipment and vehicles.

The High Court rejected the forfeiture application in June 2025, and ARA appealed.

What did the Court decide?

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the earlier judgment.

The decision means the forfeiture attempt failed. It does not amount to a finding that every allegation raised during the investigation was false; the issue before the court was whether the evidence met the legal threshold for forfeiture.

The distinction matters for companies moving money across borders. International transfers can trigger scrutiny, but scrutiny alone does not establish that funds are proceeds of crime.

Why businesses should care

Cross-border contractors often move money between countries to pay suppliers, workers and equipment providers. Banks and regulators also need to identify suspicious transactions and comply with anti-money-laundering requirements.

The case illustrates the tension between those two needs. Businesses must be able to document legitimate transactions, while enforcement agencies must prove the legal basis for taking property.

For companies operating in East Africa, that makes documentation important. Contracts, invoices, bank records and evidence showing how funds are used can become material when transactions are challenged.

The next position

The Court of Appeal's decision leaves the High Court judgment standing and ends this appeal.

The case is also a reminder that asset-forfeiture proceedings are separate from criminal trials. The State must meet the legal requirements applicable to the forfeiture application before property can be taken.

For cross-border businesses, the practical lesson is straightforward: maintain clear records showing where project money came from, what contract it relates to and how it is spent.