Saba Saba auction mystery: Firms ask DCI to probe Absa Bank over disputed Sh700million properties

Two companies have asked the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) to unravel what they describe as a potentially fraudulent scheme involving Absa Bank Kenya, auctioneers and companies that allegedly acquired properties worth hundreds of millions of shillings in a disputed auction held on a day Nairobi was gripped by Saba Saba demonstrations.

Kimani Operations Limited and Kimani Ventures Limited want detectives to investigate the circumstances surrounding Absa’s exercise of its statutory power of sale, the alleged auction of their properties on July 7, 2025, and the subsequent acquisition and disposal of the assets.

Their complaint names Absa Bank Kenya, P.M. Gachie trading as Regent Auctioneers, Samatar Solutions Limited, Astralis Verge Limited, Fancy Friends Auctioneers, Serah Njeri Wamwea and Mohamed Abdinasir, among others.

The companies allege fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud, abuse of process and unlawful acquisition and disposal of property.

“Our client has informed us of serious allegations of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to defraud, abuse of process, unlawful acquisition and disposal of property arising from transactions undertaken by ABSA Bank Kenya Limited, P.M. Gachie t/a Regent Auctioneers, Samatar Solutions Limited, Astralis Verge Limited, Serah Njeri Wamwea and Mohamed Abdinasir, among other persons who may be disclosed upon investigation,” the letter to the DCI states.

The companies, through directors Michael Kimani and Sarah Mwihaki, are challenging both the accounting of the underlying loan facilities and the legality of the subsequent property sales.

The missing auction

At the heart of the complaint is the July 7, 2025 auction, which the companies say raises fundamental questions about whether a genuine public auction took place.

They say Nairobi’s Central Business District (CBD) was effectively inaccessible on the day because of Saba Saba demonstrations, with roads barricaded and movement restricted by security agencies.

The companies argue that the circumstances made it impossible for members of the public and prospective bidders to access the purported auction venue.

They want the DCI to establish whether bidders were present, whether bidding actually took place and whether the properties were genuinely sold through a public auction.

“The circumstances surrounding the purported auction therefore raise serious questions as to whether any auction was conducted at all, whether bidders were present, whether any bidding actually took place and whether the purported sale was merely a pre-arranged or fraudulent disposal of the properties disguised as a public auction,” the directors told investigators.

The companies contend that the alleged sale was inconsistent with statutory requirements governing public auctions, particularly the requirement that such proceedings be conducted at venues open and accessible to the public.

The DCI has been asked to establish who organised the auction, who attended, what bids were received, who emerged as buyers and how ownership of the properties subsequently changed hands.

Multimillion-shilling loans

The disputed sales followed a series of facilities advanced by Absa to the two companies.

Kimani Operations obtained a Sh195.4 million facility on February 17, 2021, secured against Twin Towers properties identified as I.R. Nos. 36/111/152 and 36/111/153.

On the same day, Kimani Ventures obtained a Sh130 million facility secured against property in Eastleigh, Nairobi.

Kimani Operations also created a fixed and floating debenture in favour of Absa in respect of a Sh225 million facility.

A further Sh10.88 million facility was advanced on February 21, 2021, secured against Nairobi/Block 32/40 along Mbaruk Road in Ngumo Estate.

Another Sh20 million charge was registered on April 12, 2022, while a further charge was registered on April 19, 2022, over Ndumberi/Ndumberi/2067 to secure a Sh48 million facility.

The companies, however, allege that Absa has failed to provide a comprehensive and accurate account of the facilities.

They say repeated requests for loan disbursement schedules, account statements, interest calculations, payment records, charges and updated reconciliations have not yielded the information they require.

They want investigators to establish how much was actually advanced, how much was repaid, how interest and charges were calculated and the precise balances allegedly outstanding when the bank moved to sell the securities.

Buyers incorporated weeks before sale

The companies have also raised questions over the identities and financial capacity of some of the alleged purchasers.

They point out that Astralis Verge Limited was incorporated on May 15, 2025, while Samatar Solutions Limited was incorporated on June 2, 2025—just weeks before the July 7 auction.

They want the DCI to establish who owned and controlled the companies at the time, their sources of funds, banking transactions and financial capacity to acquire the properties.

The firms have also questioned subsequent changes in the directorship of Astralis Verge.

According to their complaint, a company search conducted on March 16, 2026, showed the addition of three directors, including Midnight Train Traders and Phillis Njambi.

Further searches, they claim, indicated that Midnight Train Traders is associated with Philip Njambi.

The companies want detectives to establish the circumstances surrounding the incorporation and subsequent restructuring of the companies, as well as any links between the alleged purchasers, auctioneers, Absa and other parties involved in the transactions.

DCI asked to follow the money

Besides the disputed auction, Kimani Operations and Kimani Ventures want investigators to conduct a forensic examination of the transactions surrounding the loans and property disposals.

They have asked the DCI to scrutinise company incorporation records, ownership and directorship structures, bank accounts and transactions, sources of funds, communications and dealings among the parties.

The companies also want investigators to identify any other individuals or entities who may emerge from the probe.