Digitalent Systems co-director testifies against Boris Owiye Agonga in alleged vehicle theft case

The trial of Boris Owiye Agonga, a director of Digitalent Systems Limited, continued in court with testimony from the company’s co-director Boniface Gichane Maina, who told the court that the accused unlawfully transferred company vehicles into his personal name without board approval.

A fortnight ago, 2027 parliamentary aspirant for Funyula constituency Boris Owiye Agonga was charged before a Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi for allegedly stealing a motor vehicle belonging to a firm his co-owns as a director.

According to documents filed in court, Agonga is accused of stealing a Land Rover Discovery valued at Sh6,820,000 said to be the property of Digitalent Systems Limited, which allegedly came into his possession by virtue of his position in the company.

According to the charge sheet, Agonga is accused of committing the offence on June 12, 2025 within Nairobi.

“On June 12, 2025 within Nairobi, being a director of Digitalent Systems Limited, you stole motor vehicle registration number KDL 560Z, make Land Rover Discovery valued at Sh6,820,000 being property of Digitalent Systems Limited which came to your possession by virtue of your directorship,” the charge sheet reads in part.

He was arrested by the police on February 13, 2026.

During cross-examination, Maina maintained that although Agonga had authority to manage company assets as a director, he did not have authority to transfer ownership of those assets to himself.

“He has authority to manage, yes, but not to ownership-transfer to himself. Management is for the benefit of Digitalent Systems, not for personal gain,” Maina told the court.

Maina stated that there was no board resolution authorising the transfer of the company vehicles, which he identified as a Land Rover Discovery and a Nissan Sylphy.

He further explained that the company discovered the alleged transfer when a search was conducted on the NTSA portal, which indicated that Digitalent Systems Limited was no longer listed as the owner of one of the vehicles.

“We discovered the change when we did a search on the NTSA portal and saw the company no longer appeared as the owner,” Maina testified.

Defense counsel suggested that the Land Rover Discovery had been primarily used by Agonga for company business and proposed that the vehicles may have been part of a compensation arrangement.

However, Maina rejected that claim.

“That is absolutely false. We have clear records of our compensation and dividends. At no point did the directors sit and agree to gift Mr. Boris two vehicles,” he told the court.

The witness also addressed documents allegedly used to transfer ownership of the vehicles, telling the court that signatures appearing on them were not his.

“I saw the documents that were submitted to NTSA. They bear a signature that purports to be mine and a company stamp that is not the official one we use in the office. I did not sign those documents,” Maina testified.

Defense counsel suggested that the criminal case could be part of a business dispute within the company aimed at forcing Agonga out.

Maina rejected the suggestion, telling the court that the matter involved theft of company assets.

“This is not a business dispute. This is theft. When you take a Land Rover belonging to the company and put it in your name using a fake signature, that is a crime,” he said.

The court also heard that the Land Rover Discovery was later recovered by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and is currently being held as an exhibit.

However, Maina told the court that the company still cannot use the vehicle and that the Nissan Sylphy allegedly linked to the case has not yet been recovered.

He further informed the court that the company currently retains possession of two other vehicles, registration numbers KDA 506S and KDB 432Z.

Agonga had earlier been arrested in connection with the matter following investigations by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, which alleged that ownership records of company vehicles had been altered through fraudulent documentation.

The case is scheduled to continue on March 11, 2026, when further proceedings are expected before the court.