Man loses Sh4 million vehicle bought from NYS heist suspect

National Youth Service (NYS) officers march past the Presidential dias during Madaraka Day Celebrations at Masinde Muliro Stadium in Kanduyi, Bungoma County on June 1, 2024. [Pius Cheruiyot, Standard]

A man has lost Sh4 million vehicle after the Court of Appeal found that its previous owner acquired it using proceeds of crime.

Justices Hellen Amondi, Ali Aroni and Imana Laibuta found that the high-end vehicle was purchased using funds allegedly looted from the National Youth Service (NYS).

Nelson Saina sought to have the appellate court release the vehicle, a Prado, after he failed to convince the High Court of the same.

The vehicle was seized after an application by the Assets Recovery Authority (ARA) who also seized other property in the case against eight NYS suspects.

Among other property seized by ARA were a maisonette in Kasarani, Nairobi, a plot in Ruiru and two other vehicles, Prado.

The vehicle was previously owned by John Ndung’u and Saina said that he bought it at a public auction by Auckland Agencies Auctioneers on September 30, 2016.

In the transaction, he surrendered a vehicle he had and paid Sh2.8 million.

He got a certificate of sale on October 4, 2016, and a logbook later.

At the High Court, he argued that the vehicle should be released since it was registered in his name and should not be attached as part of the property and assets belonging to Ndung’u.

Saina further said that during the sale when they conducted a search on the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) portal, the results showed that it had no caveat.

He would later be asked by Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) officers to surrender the vehicle.

Saina says that a search by his lawyers found that there were no orders against him or Labulax Supplies Limited that transferred the vehicle to him.

Justice Lydia Achode found that by the time he was purchasing the vehicle there was an order against it.

Sergeant Fredrick Musyoki for ARA he applied for preservation and surrender orders against property and assets of NYS heist suspects.

In his High Court application, Musyoki sought to have the vehicle surrendered to Jeremiah Matipei of the DCI until the court delivers a ruling on the matter.

During the hearing against Ndung’u and his co-accused, the ARA official said that attempts to recover the vehicle hit a snag after but Saina allegedly refused to surrender it.

Justice Achode found that his application lacked merit and dismissed it saying that it was made 18 months after the order for forfeiture was made.

At the appellate court, Saina argued that ARA had no right to seize his vehicle in the execution of an order against a third party not known to him.

His lawyers told court that when the advertisement by the auctioneers was made ARA did not object and their client was a bonafide purchaser from an auction and not from Ndung’u.

They said that neither Saina’s logbook was contended nor how he acquired the vehicle.

The lawyers further argued that when Ndung’u took a loan from a credit firm using the vehicle as security then it became a commercial commodity that could be sold in the event he defaulted.

ARA said that there was an order in place and so the sale and transfer should not have happened since they had gazetted it.

The Authority argued that the contention was whether Saina lawfully acquired the vehicle.

The three-judge bench ruled that the gazette was to give notice that the listed property had been preserved pending further orders from the court.

“It was and is deemed that the previous owner of the subject motor vehicle, Mwananchi Credit Company, the auctioneer, and, more particularly, the applicant, were aware of the orders of the court.”

The Judges said that no evidence was tabled to show that Ndung’u had taken a loan from Mwanachi Credit.

“In this instance, the evidentiary burden of proof was upon the appellant yet he failed to prove that he lawfully acquired the vehicle,” said the judges.

They faulted Saina for not tabling evidence to prove that the auction took place.

“In conclusion, we find that the appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.”