Blog Page 149




The late former Cabinet Mbiyu koinange widow Mrs Margaret Njeri Mbiyu (left) with her lawyer Beatrice Kariuki leaving Milimani law courts after high court allowed them appeal against the judgment on Friday October 30, 2015.


High court has given a temporary reprieve to the two women whom it found were not Mbiyu Koinange’s widow by allowing them appeal against the judgment.

Justice William Musyoka given temporary of execution of the judgment for a period of 30 days to enable Margrate Njeri and Edda Wanjiru to challenged judgment that kick the out of Koinange family.

The battle of the vast estate of later former powerful cabinet minister which has lasted for over 25 years in court came to an end last month when the court made final judgment.

Justice Musyoka made several declarations which included the appointment of new estate administrators to manage estate.

The judge said that David Njunu Mbiyu Koinange and David Waiganjo Koinange wil be the administrators of the estate, the judge revoked former administrators.

He said the new administrators should urgent steps to recover the assets held illegal by the members of the family.

Justice Musyoka, said property LR No 3561/2 and the Oceanic hotel and land which changed hand in unclear circumstance which be among the assets to be recovered by the administrators.

The advocates who are holders of account at Ecobank Kenya limited should true account of the money within a period of 30 days.

He said the advocates were to hold money in trust and they are entitled to account any amount removed from the bank and explain whose authority the withdrawal was done and spent.

The judge found in the judgment, that Njeri and Wanjiru were not widows of the late Koinange, saying that the court makes declaration that they cease being members of the deceased.

The judge removed 11,000 shares held by Edda Wanjiru and directed the same revert back to the estate.

” To facilitate the distribution of land assets whose title documents have been misplaced or lost i order the cancellation of such transactions and direct chief land registrar to issue new tittles” he said.

The court directed that the matter be mentioned after 90 days to confirm compliance.




Lawyer Cecil Miller for Muchanga Investment limited with lawyer Allan Kaman leaving Milimani law courts after high Court suspended a criminal case against former National Social Security Fund managing Trustee Josephat Konzolo and suspended Cabinet Secretary Charity Ngilu pending determination of Sh8 billion Karen land disputed case on Friday October 30,2015..
The High Court has suspended a criminal case against former National Social Security Fund managing Trustee Josephat Konzolo and suspended Cabinet Secretary Charity Ngilu pending determination of Sh8 billion Karen land disputed case.

In her ruling Justice Lucy Nyambura Gacheru said that it is fair for the criminal case against the two pending in the lower court to be temporarily suspended pending the court come of the case filed in the high court by Muchanga Investment Ltd, the company which claims the ownership of the property in dispute.

After the judge suspended the criminal case against Ngilu and Konzolo, Muchanga Investment, through its lawyer Cecil Miller and Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Keriako Tobiko applied for leave to file
their appeal application to challenge the ruling.

However the judge allowed their intention to appeal against the ruling and fixed the case to be mentioned of November 17 for further direction.

Earlier Ngilu and Konzolo, through lawyers Paul Muite and Kioko Kilukumi had urged the judge to consider their application seeking to halt the trial of the two filed at the Anti-Corruption Court in
Milimani by the DPP.

In that case Ngilu is accused of obstructing investigators into them Karen land by directing ministry officials not to release documents to EACC investigators or even record any statements regarding the land.
She is out on Sh 1 million bond,while Konzolo is accused of forging tittles of the same land.

In the application which sought stay of the criminal case, the Director of Public Prosecution , who had enjoined as interested party, through senior state counsel F.S.Ashimosi has opposed Ngilu and Konzolo’s request to have their
criminal case suspended.

Also the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) which was also in the case as interested party had urged court not to allow the application, saying no evidence had been tabled by Ngilu and Konzolo.

During the submissions, Ashimosi and Miller jointly told the court that Environment and Land Court being a specialized court under the constitution of Kenya does not have jurisdiction to entertain or
determine of criminal proceedings commenced in Anti-Corruption case against Konzolo and Ngilu.

Miller told the court that Konzolo and Ngilu have not demonstrated abrogation, breach, infringement, violation of any constitutional provision.

He said that the applicant has not demonstrated a prima facie case and exceptional and unusual circumstances that unless stay is granted then the applicant will suffer prejudice.

Miller told the court that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under the constitution and other statutory provisory and rules made.
Mr Miller said that Environmental Court was only set up for dealing with Environment matters and that it has no jurisdiction of determining criminal matters.

He told the court that Ngilu and Konzolo have already filed another application at the Constitutional Court seeking the same orders which they have failed to be granted to them.

In the application Konzolo through his company limited, said there are two pending matter before the High Court touching on the anti-corruption case relating to the dispute of ownership of the Sh 8 billion Karen land.

He told the court that since Environmental and Land division is yet to make a decision as who owns the suit land the subject matter of the criminal case that is set for hearing at anti- corruption court on
November 3, 2015 should be stayed to await the outcome of High Court’s

The court heard that Ngilu’s petition has been already referred to Chief Justice Willy Mutunga to appoint a bench to determine the constitutionality and legality of Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission which made recommendation for his prosecution.

Konzolo said that the two High Court divisions are likely to come up with conflicting decisions, saying already some officers from the ministry of Lands who have been charged have given evidence in the
civil suit filed by Muchanga Investment who claims ownership of the suit land.

The court heard that the actions of DPP to charge some of the defendants in the civil suit is clearly an abuse of the legal process which act is aimed at giving unfair advantage to one of the parties in
both civil and constitutional cases.

He urged the court to exercise its discretion and intervene by issuing orders staying the criminal case pending the hearing and determination of the application seeking to quash the matter before
the anti- corruption court.

Konzolo, Ngilu and several senior officials from the ministry of Lands were arraigned in court facing charges of corruption and abuse office in relation to Karen land, saying that ownership of the suit
property is the central issue pending before the civil court which was instituted long before the criminal case limited.




Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission official Henry Morara Ongwenyi with his lawyer Harun Ndubi outside Employment and Labour Relations on October 20, 2015.
Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission’s Chief executive officer Halakhe Waqo and Michael Mubea failed to turn up in court has ordered instead they send senior lawyers to represent them.
The two had been ordered to appear in court to show cause action should not be taken against them for disobeying a court order requiring the reinstatement its former employee.

Their team of lawyers, senior Counsel Paul Muite, Ahmednasir Abdullahi and Ochieng Oduol, told the that the two were out of the country.

The court fixed the matter be heard on Friday next when the two have returned back to the country.

Employment and Labour Relations presiding judge Justice Mathew Nduma Nderi had issued orders after he was informed that the two officers of EACC have not complied with judgment of the court dated August 19.

The judge ordered them to appear in court on October 30 to explain why they have not reinstated Mr Henry Morara Ongwenyi to his position as education officer 1.

Mr Ongwenyi through lawyers Harun Ndubi and Kwame Nkruma, told the court that the two officers have totally ignored the orders of the court and the only avenue available is to punish them.

Lady Justice Maureen Onyango had found and held that the dismissal of Mr Ongwe nyi was unlawful and can not be compensated by way of damages.
The judge had given the commission 14 days to comply with the court’s orders, by reinstating him to his position which he held in 2014 when the commission purported to terminate his employment

The dismissal of the petitioner by EACC was unfair and both substantively for failure to give reasons for termination of his employment” the judge said.

The court found that EACC had colluded the office of the director of criminal investigations by using state machinery to intimidate the petitioner who had applied for the position of deputy director.

The judge said damages provided for under the employment Act for loss of employment would not adequately compensate the petitioner for the tribulation he was subjected, saying that restatements must be accompanied with his benefits

During the hearing of the petition his lawyers told the court that petitioner was employed by the commission on 6th March 2006 as education officer on renewable fixed term contract.

The lawyers told the trial judge that in 18 May 2014 anonymous persons sent emails making allegations of impunity, corruption, incompetence and general impropriety against several officials of the commission.

The said allegations were sent through an email which management of the commission purported to have come from the petitioner.

They submitted that the summary dismissal was unconstitutional, illegal and malicious and was actuated by a personal vendetta perpetuated by two former commissioners.

The court found the allegations against the petitioner lacking evidence and facts to warrant the dismissal of the petitioners.




Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) lawyer Elisha Ongoya, with the association treasurer who is the senior Children court magistrate Derrick Kuto and vice chairman Rashid Omar outside a courtroom at Milimani law courts after high court directed it will deliver a ruling on Monday as to whether to review its decision of the association annual general meeting scheduled for tomorrow on Friday October 30,2015.
Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) annual general meeting scheduled for tomorrow remains suspended until Monday when the court will make a ruling as to whether to review its decision.

KMJA lawyer Elisha Ongoya told the court that, they have complied with court’s orders.
He urged the court to set ai side it order suspending the AGM for a period of four months.

Justice Joseph Onguto, heard that registrar of societies has confirmed that returns have been made and rules to govern the elections of officials of the association have been set out as required by law.

Justice Onguto had put on hold the ,meeting to allow current officials to make returns to the registrar of societies.

The AGM and the general conference was scheduled to take place on 29 and 31 October to elect the association’s officials and a representative to the Judicial service commission.
City lawyer Kevin Turunga Ithagi moved to court seeking to halt the meeting, saying that KMJA since its registration has been embroiled in illegalities and its conducted its business unlawfully.
The petitioner said that KMJA has no registered officials to conduct its business at the AGM, saying that current office bearer are not recognized by the Registrar of Societies no returns have been since 2012.
He told the court that officials of KMJA have through the national council, illegally amended the association’s Constitution and further created additional regional councils, which is contrary to stringent procedures as provided for under its statue.
” Petitioner also assert that the officials of KMJA are in office illegally and improperly and have continued to conduct themselves in a manner not expected of state officers pursuant to Article 10 of the constitution” he told the court.
However the application was opposed by current officials through Elisha Ongoya, saying the petitioner had not demonstrated any rights as been infringed or is threatened with infringement to be entitled to the conservatory order halting the meeting.
He submitted that changed rules were subject for adoption during the AGM, saying the efforts are being made to regularize the association’s records for submission to the registrar of societies.



ngangaEmbattled Muranga governor Mwangi wa Iria lawyer senior counsel Paul Muite ,Nganga Mbugua and Council of Governors lawyer Peter Wanyama at Milimani law courts on Wednesday October 29, 2015.

The Senate has urged the court to allow its committee to complete its task over the impeachment of Governor Mwangi wa Iria.

Through lawyer Anthony Njoroge the Senate told the court that the impeachment process is the mandate of the Senate and the County Assembly.

He told the court to dismiss the Governor’s application as the orders sought offend the doctrine of separation of powers as it seeks to restrain the senate from undertaking their constitutional functions.
Wa Iria’s Lawyer Paul Muite pleaded with the court to grant the governor the conservatory orders stopping the Senate from debating his impeachment motion.

“The Governor is not responsible for the allegations of misappropriation of funds,” said muite.The counsel was trying to convince the court over the importance of granting the conservatory orders sought on the grounds that the Governor is entitled to fair trial.

He added that the County Assembly of Muranga by purporting to impeach the Governor without giving him an opportunity to be heard or waiting the matter in court to be heard violated the law.

The counsel added that the County Government violated the law by failing to supply the Governor with an impeachment notice and all material evidence that was to be used.

The senate urged the court to dismiss the Governor’s application claiming the orders sought offend the doctrine of separation of powers as it seeks to restrain the senate from undertaking their constitutional functions.

Muite argued in court that the people of Muranga County were not involved in the process of approving the resolution to introduce the motion to remove the Governor.
The Governor wants the court to stop Muranga County Assembly and Speaker of the Senate from receiving, acting or taking decisions against the Governor that are in violation of his constitutional.

He wants a declaration that the resolution by Muranga County approving the motion of the Governor’s impeachment process his right was violated.
Sheriff Sam Mwenda the counsel for Senate said they were just been served with the submissions and needed time to respond.

“The Senate was served on Thursday and we require time to file our submissions,” said Mr Mwenda. This was after Mbuthi Gathenji, representing the assembly, said they needed instructions to know how to respond to the matter.

“We need to react to the application before us and we seek up to next week because on Wednesday I will not be available,” said Mr Gathenji.

Wa Iria’s lead council Paul Muite, wanted the court to grant conservatory orders as soon as possible.
Justice Joseph Onguto did not issue any orders but directed the parties to come for ruling on November 3.
Iria’s lawyers Paul Muite and Nganga Mbugua appeared before Justice Onguto on Monday seeking temporary orders to bar the senate from debating the governor’s impeachment but was directed to appear in court on Thursday for further directions,
Justice Joseph Onguto heard that the speaker of the senate is yet to summon the governors for the hearing of the impeachment motion.
The axe fall on Murang’a Governor Mwangi wa Iria, on October 21 after the Assembly voted that he is no longer capable of being their county chief.
The impeachment motion was tabled in the County Assembly on Tuesday last week by nominated MCA Ms Mary Waithirawho asked her comrades to get rid of the governor over alleged flouting of public finance management and procurement procedures.
In the motion, Ms Waithira said that the governor lacks accountability in management and use of the county’s resources and has incurred a debt of Sh2.5 billion which was never disclosed to the assembly.
“Gakoigo stadium under the department of Youth and Sports was allocated Kshs.30 Million in the financial year 2014/2015, yet it had incurred a total debt of Sh59 Million and no monies had been paid,” the MCA said.
She also claimed that the action puts the county at a very precarious situation which may lead to auctioning of county assets.

Governor wa Iria is said to have allowed misappropriation of county funds by spending public money in private commercial entities.

Ms Waithira said that a report by the Auditor General on the financial operations of Murang’a county executive for the period, 1st July 2013 to 30 June 2014 showed that the County Executive contributed a total of Sh28.5 million to Murang’a Investment Co-operative Society (Shilingi-Kwa-Shilingi).

“The Society is an autonomous body independent of the County Executive and according to the Auditor General’s report; it was not clear therefore the circumstances under which the county Executive was funding it,” Ms Waithira said.

High court is expected to make a ruling on November 3.
NAIROBI TIMES was reliably informed that one Member of Parliament from Muranga is the one who sponsored the impeachment motion secretary.

According to the information we have obtained, the governor will sought to know whether he was impeached by the party since the impeachment motion was by a nominated member by the party

The legislator who is accused of being Iria’s woes is said to be interested with contesting for Muranga county governor position come 2017.



kohenLawyer Amanya Cohen and Asiimwe Fred Johnson for thirty seven students from the Kenya School of law who are challenging de-registration from the advocates training program and denial of some of them from sitting for the final exams on Wednesday October 29, 2015.
Thirty seven students from the Kenya School of law have moved to court challenging de-registration from the advocates training program and denial of some of them from sitting for the final exams.
The students moved to court under certificate of urgency seeking conservatory orders staying the entire process of clearance and registration of exams claiming that it is discriminative.
Through their lawyer Asiimwe Fred Johnson and Amanya Cohen the students claims that the entire process of Registration for the ATP Examination and issuance of Examination cards for the year 2015/2016 does not adhere to principles of Natural Justice.
Lawyer Asiimwe says that the petitioners were admitted and registered by the Kenya School of Law after fulfilling all the requirements and are holders of the Admission letters, Identity cards, library cards and registration numbers.
“The students have been attending lectures, classes and participating in program such as moot courts and legal clinics organized by the Kenya School of Law,” said Cohen.
The students have sued the Council of Legal Education, Professor Bitonye Kulundu (secretary council of legal education), The Kenya School of Law and the Attorney General.
He claims that Kenya School of Law issued a notice requiring the students to apply for the final written examinations of which they did but to his surprise he was issued with the letter denying them an opportunity to participate in the forthcoming ATP final Examinations.
They term the act as unlawful and that if orders are not issued they shall suffer immensely as they will lose a further two years before they are re-admitted at Kenya School of Law and further two years before they can be enrolled as advocates of the High court of Kenya.
“This is an infringement of the student’s constitutional rights to complete their education,” said Asiimwe. They claim that on February 2015 they were issued with library cards and school IDs all dated January 14, 2015 and expiring on December 31, 2016.
They claim that on October, the Council of Legal Education (CLE) issued a notice requiring all Kenya school of Law students to apply for Registration for the November examinations, which all students did.
“To our surprise CLE issued us with letters indicating that we will not be allowed to sit for the November ATP examinations without even according us an opportunity to present our case and be heard, which letters dated October 22, 2015 left us devastated,” say students.
They claim the respondents actions are discriminatory, unfair oppressive and oppressive and unconstitutional to the petitioners who have spent valuable and considerably much time attending classes since 12 January 2015 and have in the process paid tuition fees, incurred substantial accommodation and transport expenses while attending classes for the last ten months.
Lawyer Cohen says the students are entitled to access to information to determine the basis of their denial to sit and participate in the ATP Examinations for the academic year 2015/2016 and the persons who were involved in the exercise and if any consultations took place.
According to him, the students have been indirectly denied access to learning facilities at the Kenya School of law by denying them to sit and do their final ATP Examinations and their legitimate expectations to continue their studies having commenced the same in January 2015 and having paid all the school dues.
Justice Onguto declined to issue any conservatory orders despite the effort by the two lawyers to convince him to grant them the orders sought in their application.
He certified the matter urgent and directed the case to be heard on Tuesday next week before Justice Mumbi Ngugi for further directions.



tradersSeven traders of Somali origin Maryam Mude Ahmed, Adan Shelkh Ali, Ali Isamel Adow Noordin Osman Haji, Shukri Abdi Jama, Adan Abdulahi Yakub and Ibrahim Mohamed Ali before Milimani law court magistrate court where they were charged with of diverting goods on transit with dutiable value of Sh 24 million on Wednesday October 29,2015..

Seven traders of Somali origin have been charged with the offence of diverting goods on transit with dutiable value of Sh 24 million.

Accused Maryam Mude Ahmed, Adan Shelkh Ali, Ali Isamel Adow Noordin Osman Haji, Shukri Abdi Jama, Adan Abdulahi Yakub and Ibrahim Mohamed Ali appeared before |Nairobi Chief Magistrate Daniel Ogembo, where they denied nine counts of diverting 550 bags of Brazil Sugar and making false documents.

The prosecution told the court that the accused committed the offences on 5 September 2015, they all arrested on 20 August and have been pout on police bond.
The court heard that the consignment was on transit to Uganda vide custom entry number 2015 MSA 5636113.

The accused at on same date of arrest at Mega Yard in Embakasi in Nairobi County jointly with others aided M/S Jojemu Plastic Industry of Uganda in the commission of the offence of diversion of transit goods VHP Brazil sugar that was on board motor vehicle registration No KBQ 810P/ZD 0649.

The prosecution told the court that on 2 September 2015 at Auto port container freight station with intent to defraud i made a document which they purported was genuine issued by customs to clear EVC granules instead of VHP Brazil sugar.

They denied the offence was released on cash bail of Sh 100,000 each or alternative bond Sh 500,000.

The court ordered their criminal case be heard on 26 January 2016 and same be mentioned on November 12.



Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) Celestine Opiyo and Antony Oluoch leaving Milimani law courts after filing a petition challenging the decision of the President to refuse to assent into law eight amendment Bills passed by Parliament between 2013 and 2015 on Wednesday October 29,2015.

Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) has moved to court to challenge the decision of the President to refuse to assent into law eight amendment Bills passed by Parliament between 2013 and 2015.

The coalition partners are aggrieved with the head of state refusal to give assent the amendment Bills that duly debated and passed National Assembly.

The contested Bill by the Coalition includes the public Health Audit Bill of 2014, Retirement Benefits for Deputy President and designated state officers.

Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission amendment Bill 2015, The Ethics of Central Bank of |Kenya 2015, The Kenya Information and Communication Bill 2013, Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2014, Flag, Emblem and Names and the National Police Service amendment Bil of 2014.

At the hearing of the petition the coalition will ask the court to finding as to whether the president has powers to make recommendation in his memorandum rejecting sent to him for assent by the National Assembly through speaker.

The coalition though lawyer Anthony Oluch, saying that the court will asked to interpret whether the President Share legislative powers with the National Assembly or the Senate

The lawyer said that nine questions have been framed for consideration by the high court, saying that the actions by the President are in breach of the constitution under Article 115 of the statue.

It’s the court to make a determination whether the President is in breach of doctrine of separation of power, the lawyer says.

Mr Oluoch argue that its upon the court to determine whether any Laws made and or enacted pursuant to Presidential assent or refusal to assent are invalid and therefore null and void.

The Coalition will pray the court make a declaration that the powers of the President under Article 115 of the Constitution are limited to making reservations and do not extend to making or sharing of legislative powers with the National Assembly or the Senate and any proposed amendments to delete or insert fresh or new clauses is unconstitutional, amounts to usurping the power of the National Assembly.

He says in the court documents that usurpation of the power of Parliament, is in breach of the principles of separation of powers, is null and void and therefore unconstitutional.

The petitioner will apply to have all memorandum and reservation by the President declared illegal unconstitutional and abuse of power.




Lawyer Nelson Havi for former Central Bank of Kenya Governor Nahashon Nyagah who is contesting for the withdrawal of cases against the Sh240 billion Tatu City project.


Former Central Bank of Kenya governor Nahashon Nyagah on Friday moved to court to contest the withdrawal of cases against the Sh240 billion Tatu City project.

Nyagah said the notice filed by other local investors led by Thika Coffee Mills tycoon Pius Ngugi and Anthony Njoroge should be struck out.

In a suit filed under a certificate of urgency by lawyer Nelson Havi, he said the withdrawal of the case is an abuse of the court process as there is an appeal pending at the Court of Appeal over the matter.

“The aforesaid application is yet to be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. The court ordered stay of proceedings for 14 days pending the making of a formal application for stay by Tatu City operations officer Christopher Baron which the said period is yet to expire,” Nyagah said.

International shareholders in the project are Rendeavour chief executive officer Stephen Jennings, Frances Holliday, Hans Horn, Frank Mosier who have had a protracted dispute over the project with Nyagah and Bidco CEO Vimal Shah.

In withdrawing the suit last week, senior counsel Abdulaih Ahmednassir said Ngugi and Njoroge were no longer interested in the case against the investors.

“Take notice that the first and second applicants wholly withdraw all their claims against the respondents,” Ahmednassir said in the letter addressed to the Commercial Division of the High Court in Milimani, Nairobi.

The decision to withdraw the case is said to have been arrived at on September 16 after an Annual General Meeting in which it was reported that Nyagah has not invested any money in Tatu City Ltd.

The board also decided to drop lawyer Nelson Havi who has been representing Tatu City and appointed Ahmednassir as their lead counsel.

It was reported that Vimal only made a one-time investment of Sh30 million which represents less than 0.3 per cent of the project cost.

In the meantime, it was said that the international shareholders had invested more than Sh10 billion in the project hence no need of having the two.

“The actions of Tatu City Limited board, carried out in full accordance with corporate governance and Kenyan law, ensure that Nyagah and Vimal who have invested almost no money in the project, can no longer block the creation of tens of thousands of jobs and homes at 2,500-acre mixed-use and mixed-income development,” the minutes of the AGM said.



Five parliament employees Obudo Samuel Otieno (director of finance) Keith Musyoki Kisinguh and Alloys Nyambariga (Supplies department George Omondi Arun and Benjamin Njagi Kagutu at Milimani law courts on Tuesday October 27,2015
Chief magistrate’s court in Nairobi has released five Parliamentary Service Commission employees with a Cash bail of Sh 300,000 with a surety of Sh 1 million.

Senior principal Magistrate Benson Nzakyo, directed the suspects to deposit the amount to secure their release pending investigation to the loss of Sh 78 million from Parliament kitty.

Senior Principal Magistrate Benson Zakyo in his ruling said he found no reason to detain the accused.
“In my personal opinion I have not seen any reason why the respondents should be detained for more than 24 hours” said Zakyo.

Director of Public Prosecution Keriako Tobiko had applied to have five held for a period of 14 days to allow police investigate.

”The amount of money involved is complex and police has been unable to complete investigation’s. All the five respondent are employees of parliament if released they are likely to interfere with investigation” Said Karuri.

However, accused defense team led by James Ochieng objected to DPP application.
It’s inconsistent to say one has stolen over 70 million and then on the other hand say we have not completed investigations” James Ochieng told the court.

The suspects Obudo Samuel Otieno (director of finance) Keith Musyoki Kisinguh and Alloys Nyambariga (Supplies department George Omondi Arun and Benjamin Njagi Kagutu were arrested on Monday and the DPP says police have not completed investigation before a decision is made whether to charge them.

The DPP through senor state counsel Daniel Karori, told the court that police require more time to investigate and interview witnesses.
He said two of key witnesses are out of the country, a decision to charge cannot be arrived.the suspect are staff members of Parliament under the employment of PSC, whose investigation might take time.
The prosecution told senior principal magistrate Benson Nzakyo, that there are several leads being followed by the police.
Panic has gripped Parliament after CID officers nabbed five staff in connection with the alleged theft of Sh500 million Monday evening.

Contrary to the expectation that the investigation would be extended to senior Parliamentary staff and the leadership, it turned out the probe only targeted the juniors.

Legislators and some staff yesterday faulted the manner in which the probe is being done after the anti-graft sleuths opted for the finance officer, procurement officer, internal auditor and the store manager.

They lamented that the investigation is being carried out in a skewed manner to spare the ‘big fish’ by sacrificing the defenseless officials, Samuel Otieno Obudo(Finance), Keith Musyoka (procurement), Alloys Nyambariga Tinega (stores), George Omondi Arum (internal audit) and Benjamin Njagi (stores).

But even as the staff and Members of Parliament ponder over the turn of events, they poked holes on the weak governance structures at the August House and the increase appetite to defraud Kenyans through fraudulent means.

The matter will be mentioned tomorrow to confirm compliance.