The collapse of Ekeza Sacco left tens of thousands of Kenyans fighting to recover their savings. Years later, questions remain over the recovery process, the land transferred to compensate members and the role of Promitto Limited, a company headed by the Sacco’s former acting chief executive, James Benson Kagoni.
The central question is whether the arrangements adequately protected members’ interests, or whether the relationship between the recovery manager and the property interests associated with Bishop David Kariuki Ngari, popularly known as Gakuyo, deserves closer scrutiny.
The allegations surrounding asset ownership and control must, however, be distinguished from established findings. Court and tribunal proceedings involving Kagoni’s investment company do not, by themselves, establish that he was used to conceal Ekeza assets or that Promitto Limited held property on Gakuyo’s behalf.
The latest developments have revived scrutiny of Ekeza’s asset recovery arrangements, particularly the relationship between Kagoni’s role at the Sacco and his leadership of Promitto Limited, which later became embroiled in a separate investment dispute.
The Sh1 Billion Ekeza Trail
Ekeza Sacco’s collapse triggered a prolonged fight over billions of shillings collected from members who had hoped to acquire land, secure affordable loans and earn returns on their savings.
According to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, a government audit found that Sh1.052 billion had been misappropriated between 2015 and 2018 by Gakuyo and other senior managers. Investigators alleged that funds were channelled from Ekeza to Gakuyo Real Estate, advocates and other activities, including church-related operations. Gakuyo has denied wrongdoing and is contesting the allegations in court.
The arrangement left members facing a difficult question: how would the money be recovered, and what safeguards would ensure that the assets earmarked for compensation were properly accounted for?
In October 2019, Gakuyo reportedly agreed to surrender eight properties valued at approximately Sh881 million towards settling liabilities owed to members. The properties included sites in Joska, Kilimambogo, Konza, Mariakani, Subukia-Solai and Nanyuki.
Kagoni was subsequently associated with the recovery process, which involved handling land, facilitating subdivisions and pursuing refunds. The arrangement was intended to turn property into compensation for members whose savings had become inaccessible.
But the recovery process has continued to attract questions over the valuation of properties, the issuance of title deeds and the extent to which affected members have received their money or land.
Promitto Limited Enters the Picture
Kagoni’s position as director of Promitto Limited has added another dimension to the controversy.
In Promitto Limited v Capital Markets Authority and two others, Appeal E004 of 2024, the company sought intervention by the Capital Markets Tribunal over its dealings with Trade Sense Limited and Amana Capital Limited.
Promitto’s application sought to compel the Capital Markets Authority to investigate the two firms and consider suspending their licences. The dispute arose from an alleged investment involving Sh62 million and US$122,710, with Promitto seeking regulatory intervention over the transactions.
The tribunal delivered its ruling on March 6, 2025. It dismissed Promitto’s January 2025 application, allowed an application filed by Amana Capital and struck out Promitto’s earlier application dated September 23, 2024. The company was also ordered to bear the costs of both the regulator’s and Amana Capital’s applications.
The ruling was primarily concerned with procedural and jurisdictional questions. It should not be interpreted as a judicial finding that Promitto participated in concealing Ekeza assets, nor does it independently establish the truth of the company’s underlying investment-loss claims.
Nevertheless, the dispute raises questions about the investment activities of a company whose director had also been entrusted with a sensitive recovery role at a troubled savings institution.
Were Ekeza Assets Properly Accounted For?
The most consequential question remains whether the properties surrendered for the benefit of Ekeza members were independently valued, properly transferred and ultimately converted into refunds or legally secure land allocations.
If the properties were sold, a transparent account of the transactions, sale prices, buyers and proceeds would help establish how much was recovered and how the money was distributed.
If land was allocated directly to members, records showing the parcels transferred, the status of title deeds and any outstanding ownership disputes would help determine whether the settlement delivered what members were promised.
These are matters that require documentary verification, including land registry searches, company records, audited accounts and any relevant findings by the Commissioner for Co-operatives or investigators.
There is currently no verified court finding in the material reviewed establishing that Gakuyo used Kagoni or Promitto Limited as a proxy to conceal, transfer or launder Ekeza assets. The alleged proxy arrangement therefore remains an allegation requiring evidence, rather than an established fact.
Gakuyo’s Legal Troubles Deepen
The wider Ekeza saga has continued to generate legal and financial consequences for its founder.
In a report published on October 1, 2026, Business Daily reported that a property in Nairobi’s Nyari Estate, registered in the names of Gakuyo and his wife, had been advertised for auction on October 22, 2026. The development came as the criminal proceedings over the alleged Sh1 billion fraud continued.
The auction notice adds to the scrutiny of the property interests associated with the Ekeza founder, although it does not establish any connection between that particular property and Promitto Limited.
For thousands of affected members, the fundamental issue remains unresolved: how much of their money has actually been recovered, where the assets went, and whether the recovery process delivered a fair and verifiable settlement.
The relationship between Gakuyo, Kagoni and Promitto Limited warrants scrutiny to the extent that documentary evidence establishes relevant connections. Any conclusion that the company was deliberately established as a vehicle to hide Sacco assets would, however, require evidence of ownership, beneficial control, asset transfers or financial transactions linking the parties.
Until those records are independently established, the strongest accountability question is not simply who controlled the recovery process, but whether the people entrusted with restoring members’ savings can account for every shilling and every parcel of land.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
