Pilot charged over alleged disappearance of Sh500 million cargo plane

Kisumu International Airport where the plane was flown from

A pilot with dual Kenyan and Canadian nationality has appeared in court charged in connection with the alleged disappearance of a cargo plane valued at Sh500m.

The man was arrested on 3 December last year by Interpol and was brought before a court in Kisumu the following day. He faces a charge of conspiracy to commit a felony.

According to the charge sheet presented in court, prosecutors allege that on various dates between 9 September 2019 and 9 March 2020, the accused, together with others not before the court, conspired to alter the aircraft’s registration from D6-AAW to EY-160 and steal a Transall C-160 cargo aircraft, serial number 233-AAI, valued at Sh500,000,000.

The charge sheet further alleges that the aircraft was flown from Wilson Airport in Nairobi to Kisumu and later to Entebbe International Airport in Uganda.

The accused denied the charge. The Kisumu Chief Magistrate’s Court released him on bail of Sh5m with two sureties of a similar amount.

The case was mentioned on 21 January, and the hearing is scheduled to begin on 25 February 2026.

Court documents filed in the matter show that a director of an aviation company reported the aircraft missing on 9 March 2020.

In an entry recorded under OB No. 41/26/5/2021, the complainant alleged that the aircraft had been flown out of Kisumu on 9 March 2020 without his knowledge, despite a court order that, he said, required the plane to remain at the airport.

Investigators told the court that their inquiries indicated the aircraft was flown to Entebbe and subsequently to the Republic of Tajikistan. Police allege that this was done using registration documents they consider to have been irregular.

In a statement to investigators, the complainant said that in October 2014 he was approached by a representative of a foreign cargo company to participate in the purchase of a C-160 Transall aircraft, serial number 233/AAI.

He told investigators that the aircraft was owned by an overseas aviation services company and that an agreement dated 30 October 2014 was signed between the parties. He said a total of US$500,000 was paid.

According to his statement, a deregistration request was sent to the relevant civil aviation authority in November 2014 in line with International Civil Aviation Organization procedures, with the intention of re-registering the aircraft in another jurisdiction. He said the aircraft was later flown to Kisumu under a new registration.

The complainant further stated that a certificate of registration was later issued in the joint names of the two companies involved.

He told investigators that before operations could begin for international clients, restrictions affecting the aircraft’s registration jurisdiction required the operators to consider re-registration elsewhere.

In his statement, he said he was later informed that authorities in another country had issued the aircraft with a different registration number. He stated that his company subsequently wrote to indicate that it had not participated in that registration process and that no proper deregistration had been completed in accordance with international aviation procedures.

The complainant told investigators that, upon reviewing documentation provided to them, they formed the view that it may not have been issued with their participation. He said further inquiries led them to conclude that the documents presented were not authentic, prompting the filing of a court case.

Court records indicate that in March 2019 an order was obtained barring the aircraft from leaving the jurisdiction of the Kenyan courts.

Police allege that, while the case was ongoing, a further registration was obtained in Tajikistan and that the aircraft was flown from Kisumu to Entebbe in contravention of the court order.

Investigators were also provided with details of the crew who flew the aircraft from Kisumu, including two captains and a flight engineer holding foreign passports.

The case continues, and the accused remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court