How a KSh35m cross-border payment became a failed asset forfeiture case
The EIS Afrika KSh35 million case has ended with the Court of Appeal rejecting the Assets Recovery Agency’s attempt to forfeit about KSh35.4 million held in an I&M Bank account, finding that ARA had not established a sufficient connection between the funds and criminal activity.
The disputed money was linked by EIS Afrika to a World Bank-funded infrastructure project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while investigators raised questions about the supporting documents but did not independently resolve them.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices L. Achode, R. Ngetich and Radido S. Okiyo dismissed ARA’s appeal on September 25, 2026, leaving intact the High Court’s June 20, 2025 decision rejecting the forfeiture application. The proceedings concerned US$274,369.56 that remained in EIS Afrika Group Limited’s I&M Bank account after an earlier transfer of US$350,000. The Court of Appeal was therefore determining whether the State had proved that the money was proceeds of crime, rather than deciding a criminal prosecution for money laundering.
Why the Court of Appeal rejected the forfeiture bid
EIS Afrika’s sole director, Nduwimana Aimable, told the courts that the US$350,000 was connected to a larger civil engineering contract awarded to the company’s Burundian affiliate, EIS Company SPRL, for construction work at the Kavimvira border post. The company said the money was routed through Kenya so it could purchase construction equipment and vehicles from Dubai, partly because of foreign-exchange constraints affecting operations in Burundi.
ARA questioned that explanation after finding inconsistencies in the documents presented to support the transaction. One of the central issues was geographical and institutional. EIS Afrika described the project in terms of the Kavimvira crossing between Burundi and the DRC, while a contract acceptance letter presented in evidence had been issued by the DRC Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Works and addressed to Group EIS.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the discrepancy was a legitimate reason for further investigation. It did not, however, accept that the inconsistency itself established that the money was criminal proceeds. The judges found that ARA had opportunities to independently verify the underlying project with relevant institutions but did not pursue those avenues sufficiently before relying on the documentary problems in support of forfeiture.
That distinction is central to the judgment. A transaction can be unusual enough to warrant scrutiny without the circumstances establishing that the money originated from crime. ARA still had to establish the required connection between the property and criminal conduct.
The World Bank project behind the disputed funds
The underlying Kavimvira project provides important context to the dispute. Kavimvira is a border post in Uvira, South Kivu, in the DRC, on the border with Burundi. The project is World Bank-financed, with Groupe EIS-Afrika identified as the contractor, and is intended to improve infrastructure and facilitate cross-border movement.
The project has also remained active. In 2026, project authorities reported efforts involving Groupe EIS-Afrika to restart construction at Kavimvira after work had been suspended because of the security situation in Uvira.
That does not establish that every dollar passing through EIS Afrika’s Kenyan account was legitimate, nor does it resolve the specific evidentiary question before the Kenyan court. It does, however, provide important context to the dispute: the infrastructure project cited by the company was an identifiable World Bank-funded project in eastern DRC involving the same contractor named in the court proceedings.
The geographical distinction is also important. Kavimvira is on the Congolese side of the DRC-Burundi border, which helps explain why DRC government institutions appear in the contractual documentation. Describing it simply as a Burundi project risks obscuring that part of the transaction trail.
Where ARA’s evidence fell short
ARA’s own evidence became a significant factor in the appeal because investigators had not contacted the World Bank, the Burundi Embassy in Kenya or the relevant DRC ministry to independently establish the existence and details of the contract. Instead, the investigation stopped after the agency was unable to verify an email address said to be associated with the World Bank.
The Court of Appeal found that approach insufficient to establish the State’s case. The email issue raised a legitimate concern, but its failure to be verified did not establish that the infrastructure project was fictitious or that the money in the Kenyan account was criminal proceeds. The court effectively identified a gap between an investigative red flag and the evidence required to support forfeiture.
Another problem involved ARA’s description of activity in the account. The agency had referred to “massive cash withdrawals” as part of the circumstances supporting its case, but the bank statements did not substantiate that characterization. ARA’s lawyer conceded that the reference was a mistake.
That detail matters because asset-recovery proceedings depend heavily on financial records. An allegation about transaction behaviour has to correspond with the underlying banking data, particularly when it is being used to demonstrate a suspicious pattern.
The same principle applied to the cyber-forensic evidence. ARA relied on an examination of the purported World Bank email, but the court found limitations in the evidentiary foundation supporting the analyst’s conclusions. The inability to verify the email could raise questions about the communication, but it did not establish the criminal provenance of the money.
What the ruling says about asset recovery
The Court of Appeal’s reasoning also draws on the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in EACC v Pamela Aboo, which addressed the burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.
The State retains the legal burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, a connection between property targeted for forfeiture and criminal conduct. A respondent may be required to explain suspicious property once the State presents evidence warranting such an explanation, but that does not transfer the ultimate burden of proving criminal provenance to the property holder.
That principle was central to the EIS Afrika appeal. ARA had identified circumstances that warranted questions about the money, but the Court of Appeal found that the agency had not taken the investigation far enough to turn those questions into proof of criminal provenance.
The judgment therefore draws a practical line between suspicion and proof. An unusual transaction can justify investigation and preservation measures, but a forfeiture application still has to establish the statutory connection between the money and criminal activity.
The High Court had reached the same basic conclusion in June 2025 when it rejected ARA’s application to have US$274,369.56 declared proceeds of crime and forfeited to the State. ARA then pursued the appeal that was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in September.
A cross-border payments issue beyond one bank account
The case comes as African financial infrastructure is becoming more connected. TechTrendsKE reported this month that the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System, PAPSS, now operates across more than 30 African countries, connecting central banks, commercial banks and payment service providers as it expands cross-border payment infrastructure. Transaction volumes across the network were reported to have risen by about 1,000% between comparable periods in 2025 and 2026.
At the same time, Kenya has tightened its financial-crime controls. Revised terror-financing regulations published in September increased the maximum fine for legal entities from KSh3 million to KSh20 million and placed more detailed reporting obligations on financial institutions, designated non-financial businesses and professions, and virtual-asset service providers.
The combination matters because easier cross-border payments also create a greater need for institutions to establish who is sending money, who is receiving it, why the transaction is taking place and how different accounts or entities are connected. The technology can make a payment move faster, but it does not by itself establish the legitimacy of the underlying transaction.
Recent financial-fraud guidance covered by TechTrendsKE makes a related point from the consumer side. Payment instructions delivered through email or messaging platforms can look genuine while directing money to an account controlled by someone else, which is why independent verification of payment details remains important.
The EIS Afrika case presents the same problem from an investigative perspective, although in a very different setting. ARA had electronic communications, banking records and contractual documents that raised questions about the transaction. The court’s conclusion was that those questions required deeper verification rather than being treated as proof that the funds were criminal proceeds.
The result is therefore narrower than a finding that the disputed money was definitively legitimate. The Court of Appeal found that ARA had not met the legal threshold for forfeiture. The ruling leaves the wider lesson clear: as cross-border financial transactions become easier to execute and their documentary trails become more complex, investigators still have to establish what the evidence actually proves before the State can permanently take the money.
Real ESG impact doesn’t happen in panels alone, it happens in the rooms where financiers, operators, and policymakers actually align. Our GreenShift Forum 2026 cuts the noise, bringing together the people rewiring Africa’s sustainability and energy frameworks for one focused day in Nairobi. Secure your seat.
Go to TECHTRENDSKE.co.ke for more tech and business news from the African continent and across the world.
Follow us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and Facebook, or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to ensure you don’t miss out on any future updates. Send tips to info@techtrendsmedia.co.ke
