When Francis and Robert Wanyange first saw Anti-Counterfeit Authority (ACA) officers tow away their Toyota Hilux and 82 gas cylinders from Industrial Area on a chilly July morning in 2015, they assumed it was a mix-up that would clear in a week.
It took ten years.
The brothers, small-scale LPG traders trying to earn a living in Nairobi’s cut-throat gas market, suddenly found themselves facing a powerful government agency with deep pockets and legal muscle.
On July 9, 2015, ACA officers stormed their business yard, claiming the cylinders were “suspected counterfeits.” The officers seized the pickup, loaded the cylinders, and left. Robert was briefly arrested and released on bail. Days turned to months. No charges came, only silence.
Then, another agency, the Energy Regulatory Commission (now EPRA), filed unrelated criminal charges against them at the Makadara Law Courts. Those charges later collapsed for lack of evidence. Still, ACA held onto their gas cylinders.
Unable to recover their stock or vehicle, the brothers turned to the High Court, accusing ACA of violating their constitutional rights to property, fair administrative action, and livelihood.
In 2018, Justice Majanja ruled in their favour. He found that ACA had no evidence the cylinders were counterfeit, had exceeded the three-month legal limit for detaining seized goods, and had ignored due process. The court ordered the release of their property and awarded them Ksh 500,000 in general damages.
But ACA appealed, insisting the men had no valid licences to handle LPG and therefore couldn’t claim ownership of the cylinders.
Seven years later, in October 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment and delivered a strong message to enforcement agencies.
A three-judge bench led by Justice Daniel Musinga ruled that ACA had overstepped its mandate, detaining the brothers’ property without proof of counterfeiting and without filing charges.
The court dismissed ACA’s argument that lack of a licence stripped the brothers of their property rights, saying the agency had presented “no evidence, no complaint, and no justification” for the seizure.
“Possession and use of the cylinders attracted constitutional protection,” the judges said. “Mere assertions from the bar that the cylinders ‘belonged to someone else’ did not discharge ACA’s burden.”
For the Wanyange brothers, the ruling means closure and vindication after years of financial ruin and court dates. It’s also a warning to state agencies: in the age of constitutionalism, even small traders can take on the system and win.