A Kenyan High Court has ruled in favour of security firm Wells Fargo Limited in a case involving the theft of KSh 47 million (about ₦253 million) during a 2019 cash movement operation to Moyale. In the judgement delivered by Justice Freda Mugambi in Nairobi, the court dismissed a KSh 23.4 million compensation claim filed by Equity Bank Kenya, saying the bank failed to meet its part of the agreement by not providing ground security at the destination.
In the case, Equity Bank accused Wells Fargo of negligence and sought to recover the lost funds through its insurer, Britam General Insurance. The stolen money was part of KSh 60 million being transported by air from Nairobi to Odda Airstrip in Moyale, a remote border town in northern Kenya. According to court documents, the heist happened immediately after the aircraft landed and before Equity Bank’s staff could take custody of the cash. Robbers reportedly stormed the plane and took off with KSh 47 million, leaving just KSh 13 million untouched.
The key issue before the court was who bore the responsibility for the cash at the time of the robbery—Wells Fargo, the security firm in charge of transport, or Equity Bank, which failed to receive the cash on the ground as agreed in the contract. In her ruling, Justice Mugambi explained that the absence of a reception team created a security gap that allowed the robbery to happen.
She said: “The absence of a timely and armed reception team created an opportunity for the robbery to occur and interrupted the intended chain of custody. The loss, therefore, was not attributable to negligence on the part of Wells Fargo, but rather to the Bank’s own omission in fulfilling its part of the agreed operational arrangement.”
Equity Bank, in its suit filed through Britam, had asked the court to compel Wells Fargo to pay KSh 22.5 million as indemnity and KSh 900,000 for assessment and storage fees—making a total claim of KSh 23.4 million. The bank argued that since the money was still inside the aircraft and no handover had occurred, Wells Fargo was still responsible. However, the court disagreed, stating that the Service Agreement between both parties clearly put the responsibility of providing security at remote destinations like Moyale on the bank.
Wells Fargo, through its legal team, had maintained that it was not liable for the loss, as its responsibility ended with the safe transit of the cash to the airstrip. The company insisted that the standard operating procedure, which had been used for years, placed the duty of ground-level security on Equity Bank. Justice Mugambi agreed with this, noting that neither the written agreement nor operational practice required Wells Fargo to post guards at the final destination.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for how banks and security firms operate, especially when moving large sums of cash to remote or high-risk locations. Legal experts say the judgment sends a strong message about the importance of fulfilling contractual duties and properly coordinating roles between parties. They added that this case could serve as a legal precedent in similar disputes between logistics providers and their clients.
Since the court’s decision was made public, neither Equity Bank nor Britam Insurance has confirmed whether they will file an appeal. On its part, Wells Fargo has welcomed the decision, with a company official stating anonymously that the firm has always maintained high standards in cash movement operations and will continue to do so. The incident has also reignited discussions about improving security infrastructure at remote airstrips, which many banks still rely on for cash distribution in rural areas.
Meanwhile, the case has highlighted the importance of clear service agreements, especially when large amounts of money are involved. It shows that both parties must respect the terms of engagement, particularly in risk-heavy sectors like cash-in-transit logistics. With incidents of armed robbery still a concern across East Africa and Nigeria, experts believe that companies involved in secure logistics must now upgrade their protocols and review contracts to reduce ambiguity and legal exposure.
This judgement reinforces the role of the judiciary in upholding accountability and proper risk management within Kenya’s financial sector. It also mirrors conversations in Nigeria’s banking and security sector, where similar cash-in-transit disputes have occurred. As the region grows more dependent on physical and digital financial services, stakeholders say strong contracts and clear roles will remain critical to avoiding losses and litigation.
