Blog Page 2


City lawyer Guy Spencer Elms at Milimani Law Court.


A Sh500 million land dispute involving a city businessman and a lawyer failed to kick off after the witnesses failed to turn up in court in court today.

Justice John Onyego adjourned the matter and directed the case to be heard on May 21 after two officials from the office of registrar of companies failed to turn up following summons to appear and establish authetification of alleged forged documents by lawyer Spencer.

Their lawyers claimed one of them was unwell and another was in a training Justice Onyego had ordered the officials to appear in court after the

forensic examiner testified without using original copies of the signatures in the copies.
The judge wanted to hear from the officials from the companies to verify.

Thomas Mutaha who claims to own the upper hill land alleges that Spencer forged signatures and executed a will of the late Roger Robson who died in 2012.

Mutaha says he is the director of Plovers Haunt limited where the upper bill land is located.
While testifying before court last month, Mutaha said he was given for free all shares in the Plovers Haunt Company.

He confirmed that he never paid for any stamp duty in respect of the share transfers.
According to his statement in court, he signed the share transfers and gave them to the deceased Roger to effect the transfer of the land in his name in 2010.

However Guy Spencer also claims that the proposed Nairobi deputy Governor Agnes Kagure grabbed a property in Karen claiming that she paid Sh100 million cash for the land.
He says he was an advocate for the late Roger since March 1997 and Roger had signed his last Will the same year.

“Roger gave me a power of Attorney on January 2010 which was stamped and registered and at his death he still owned the properties and they were still mortgaged to Habib bank limited”, Spencer says.

During the last hearing Chief inspector Susan Wanjiru who was a forensic examiner confirmed that she had been an examiner for only 6 years. She went through and stated each document that she had been asked to examine and claimed all documents produced for examination had forged

She however conflicted herself with another document examiner that had provided a report to the Nairobi CID which contradicts hers but she said she would not comment on it.

Wanjiru also confirmed that she only had photocopies to work with and did not have the original for any of the documents how can she produce a credible report She confirmed that she did not mark up the documents but was done for her and made it clear that she had not contacted the organization or firms or people that prepared the documents in question as she said that was not her job.


Mathare North Member of Parliament Anthony Oluoch at Milimani Law Court./FILE PHOTO


Mathare North Member of Parliament Anthony Oluoch has been sued for “exorbitance.”

It is alleged that he has been charging a client unfair legal representation fees charges.

Adrian Sanita is disputing legal costs that Mr Oluoch has been charging him accusing him of fraud.

He wants the court to scrutinize discharge vouchers which were used by the advocate in paying his dues which arose from compensation by his former employer after the court found that he and others were retrenched unfairly.

According to Sanita, his former employer Telkom Kenya Limited, paid that money to Mr Oluoch bank account and was to being disbursed to various individuals.

The payments, he said varied highly from one individual to another who were all at the same level of employment.

Sanita says that Mr Oluoch deducted 30% of advocate fees, and tax from the compensation whereas there was a legal notice exempting taxes from the compensation money.

It is also alleged that the advocate also deducted money for auctioneers and “we don’t know at what point they instructed the auctioneers and the business
they were meant to perform.”

Sanita wants the court to set aside consent entered with the advocate Oluoch saying it is fraudulent as it bares forged signatures.

“It is unfair for one to work for so long
and fight court battles longer then an advocate gets half of the money,” they said.

In response, Mr Oluoch maintains that there was a valid consent which was duly signed by all the clients he represented in the matter.

He also says that payments were effected and discharge vouchers were signed by clients that they received payments and were explained to how deductions were done including advocate fees.

Justice Byram Ongaya of employment and labor relations court will make a ruling on 27th April 2018 whether the said consent is fraudulent or
not to set a ground for the case to proceed.


Salim Odhiambo Rakula and Anthony Kirubi Njoroge and Francis Kilonzo Nzuki before a Nairobi Court on Tuesday April 10,2018/PHOTO BY S.A.N.


Four Nairobi county government officials charged with fraud.

They have been charged with obtaining more than 1.6 million from association member’s.

John Monyoncho ,Salim Odhiambo Rakula and Anthony Kirubi Njoroge and Francis Kilonzo Nzuki are accused on 8 of March ,2018 at unknown place jointly with others not before court by deceit and fraudulently means conspired to defraud Nairobi County Government 1.064.000 million by falsely  pretending to be in a position to assist Eastleigh Bar Owners Association  to obtain liquor license from liquor licensing board Nairobi County Government.

Nairobi Chief Magistrate issued arrest warrant against the first accused person who failed to appear in court to face the criminal charges.

Prosecution accused the  three employees of Nairobi County government of obtaining Kshs. 790,000  by falsely pretending they are in position to assist the said Eastleigh Bar Owners Association to get liquor license.

John Monyoncho ,Salim Odhiambo Rakula and Anthony Kirubi Njoroge and Francis Kilonzo Nzuki are accused on the 18 of March,2018 at Garden Square Nairobi  jointly with others before court obtained 50,000 from Eastleigh Bar Association to assist the said Eastleigh Bar Owners Association to get  a liquor from the Licensing Board Nairobi City County Government.

John Monyoncho is accused on 21 of March ,2018 at unknown place with intent to defraud and without lawful authority forged a certain documents namely liquor license LID Number 08141 for ocean Bar and Restaurant dated 21 of March ,2018 purporting to be genuine.

He is accused on the same date this year at unknown place forged liquor license LID Number 08125 for New SHI Bar and Restaurant dated 21 of March ,2018 purporting it to be a genuine and valid liquor license issued by Nairobi County Government.

They pleaded not guilty to all nine charge’s. They were released on a cash bail of 30,000 and a bond of 100,000.

The hearing of the criminal charge’s will be heard on May.

They had been employees of Nairobi County government for three month’s before they were nabbed in the act.


Embakasi East Member of Parliament Paul Ongili alias Babu Owino


Embakasi East Member of Parliament Babu Owino is skeptic about going back to the ballot, he wants a high court decision sending him back to voters overturned.

Babu moved to the Court of Appeal seeking orders to have the decision delivered on March 2, 2018 annulling his election victory vacated or set aside.

Babu could be the first political casualty following a fallout in the NASA coalition.

In an application filed by lawyer Jackson Awele, he is seeking that the Appeal be allowed.

He also wants the decision nullifying his election be substituted with an order dismissing Election Petition number 8 of 2017 with costs.

“We pray that the Court be pleased to declare that the Hon. Owino Paul Ongili Babu was duly elected as the Member of the National Assembly, Embakasi East Constituency in accordance with the Constitution and the Elections Act”, Awele.

Owino says he was not satisfied with the decision by Justice Sergon as he erred in law in nullifying the election without sufficient evidence.


He avers that the Judge ignored relevant and binding legal standards for the evaluation of evidence in election petitions and in so doing ascribed excessive weight to irrelevant and/or otherwise weak evidence hence reaching a wrong decision.

“The Learned Judge made a fundamental error of law in ascribing excessive or weight to the uncorroborated evidence of the Petitioner’s witnesses or to evidence whose veracity was questionable in material respects,” he says in documents filed at the court.

The Learned Judge erred in law in his finding that the results of the election were not verifiable on the basis of a sample of administrative errors in only 2 out of 208 polling stations in Embakasi East Constituency.

He further states that Justice Sergon failed to holistically apply the general principles of Kenya’s electoral system in determining the Election Petition and thereby made a decision that effectively undermined and violated the popular will of a majority the people of Embakasi East Constituency as expressed through the ballot.

“The Judge erred in basing his findings of coercion and intimidation solely on the uncorroborated allegations of Nicholas Buttuk (the Returning officer), without a proper evaluation of the applicable law to determine whether the returning officer’s assertions amounted to coercion and in fact the same was expressly attributed to Owino’s agents and supporters by the relevant presiding officer,” they said.

Babu also accused the judge for basing his decision on “trivial arithmetic errors that the recount exercise reconciled and which did not materially affect the outcome of the election.”


Waziri Benson Masubo alias Waziri Chacha before a Nairobi Court.


Chacha swindled even the Speaker of the national assembly, he will remain in custody for investigations to be completed.

The court ruled that he be detained for four days for police to carry out further investigations.

Nairobi Court ordered the suspect be taken to the Mathare Mental Hospital for evaluation and the report be presented before the court.

This was after Chacha’s lawyer Job Ngeresa told the court that the respondent has seeking treatment for mental illness. He further told the learned magistrate that Chacha was arrested in Tanzania where he had gone to seek for treatment at Mwambiri hospital in Mwanza ,Tanzania.

Benson Masubo alias Chacha, who is said to have used personal details of female MPs to extort them, appeared before Resident Magistrate Christine Njagi on Tuesday.

Investigating officer John Kiprop had asked for a seven-day detention period noting they were yet to record statements by witnesses.

Kiprop added the suspect would likely escape if released.

Chacha was arrested on March 30 at Tarime in Tanzania while trying to escape to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

“He has no fixed abode and if released on police bail, he is likely to interfere with investigations,” Mr Kiprop told the court.

The Magistrate ordered that the suspect be held for four days and undergo a mental checks.

The suspect, whose trickery caused an uproar in Parliament after MPs sought intervention, is facing charges related to conspiracy to commit fraud.

Murang’a Woman Representative Sabina Chege complained about the issue prompting a debate in the August House.


Ghanian businessman Shem Grant Agyei before a Nairobi Court on Thursday March 29,2017.


A Ghanian businessman has been charged before a Nairobi Court.

Shem Grant Agyei is accused on 29 of September 2017, at Ngara in Nairobi stole a motor vehicle Toyota Hilux worth Kshs. 2,700,000 property of Agnes Wanjiku Kibue who is alleged to be his ex-wife.

The accused pleaded not guilty before Nairobi Principal Magistrate Kenneth Cheruiyot and was released on a cash bail of Sh 150,000.

The case will be mentioned on 12th and will be heard on 25th April.

The businessman who has invested millions of shillings in the country is also facing a different criminal case where he defrauded Kshs. 500,000.

It is alleged on date 3 of August 2016 at Kilimani in Nairobi, obtained Kshs. 500,000 from Magdalene Njoki by purporting to be in a position to import her Cocoa Powder from the Republic of Ghana a fact he knew was false.

He denied the charges and was released on a bond of Sh 200,000 or a cash bail of Sh 50,000.

The court heard that the accused is looking for an out of court settlement with the complainant.

The case will be heard on 27th April 2018.


A man cutting tree's at Mt Kenya forests

A businessman has filed a case in court challenging the decision to ban in logging and timber harvesting in public forests saying that it is unreasonable, discriminatory and made in bad faith.

In a petition, Daniel Kariuki Muthee says that on the 25th of February Kenya Forest Service denied him permit to transport 26 tons of Blue Gum Timbers from Elgeyo to Mombasa having lawfully bought the said timber from Toropket Sawmill on the 23rd day of February 2018.

He adds that the Kenya Forest Service in accordance to the temporary ban on logging issued on 24th February 2018 by the Government, denied him permit to transport the timber despite him

He says that he has used 650,000 shillings and denying him the transport permit will lead to a total loss since the timber will lose their market and value.

According to the court documents the applicant says that under section 8(c) of the Forest Conservation and Management Act, KFS has the mandate to receive and consider application for permits in relation to forest resources. He says that he followed all the requirement in his application for permit yet he was denied.

“The applicant has a legitimate and rightful expectation that the Forest Conservation and Management Act should be applied uniformly and with due regard to equality of treatment “reads the court documents.

In February this year the government with immediate effect imposed a moratorium on timber harvesting in all public and community forests for a period of 90 days to allow reassessment and rationalization of the entire forest sector in Kenya.

Hearing to proceed 5 of April for further directions.




Can a lawyer work too hard to defend a client? That all depends on who is paying the bill, a new lawsuit argues.

A criminal defense lawyer in Galveston, Tex., says he was pulled off cases defending poor clients because he spent too much time on them and requested funds to have their charges investigated.

Needless to say, his clients were not the ones complaining. Instead, it was the judge, Jack Ewing, who appoints lawyers for those in his courtroom who cannot afford them.

“You overwork cases,” Judge Ewing told the lawyer, Drew Willey, according to excerpts from a recorded conversation cited in the lawsuit.

Though an estimated four of every five criminal defendants in the United States use court-appointed lawyers or public defenders, many of the nation’s indigent defense systems have been criticized as desperately inadequate, leading to false guilty pleas and overincarceration.

Lawyers who represent the poor can be required to juggle hundreds of cases at a time, accept pay far lower than the market rate, or take cases for which they have little experience.

This new case, though, exposes another potential problem: Indigent defense lawyers often get their assignments from the judges in whose courtroom they appear. This discourages a robust defense, experts say, and leads to an emphasis on resolving cases quickly.

The tensions may be familiar to lawyers, but they are rarely so candidly aired as in this lawsuit, filed in federal court last week and bolstered by parts of a recorded conversation with the judge.

Mr. Willey’s lawyer, Charlie Gerstein of Civil Rights Corps, a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., said the lawsuit would be the first in a series of cases and was filed partly to illustrate a “phenomenon that pervades the entire legal system.”

The lawsuit contends that Judge Ewing took away some of Mr. Willey’s poor clients and refused to appoint him new ones because “he sought to provide a vigorous legal and factual defense for his clients.”

Mr. Willey said he has been appointed to only one case before Judge Ewing since May 2016, and that appointment was effectively made by another judge. The lawsuit asks for him to be reinstated and for Judge Ewing to be barred from retaliating against him.

In an interview, Judge Ewing denied the allegations, saying he assigned some cases to another lawyer because many of Mr. Willey’s cases were unresolved and Mr. Willey seemed overwhelmed. He also said that, as far as he knows, Mr. Willey’s eligibility to represent indigent defendants has never changed.

But according to the lawsuit, Judge Ewing told Mr. Willey that he spent too much time defending individual clients.

“You are the only attorney” to routinely ask for a paid investigator, the judge said. He also complained that cases resulting in guilty pleas generally should not take more than three hours of work, but Mr. Willey sometimes took longer.

Relatively few criminal cases ever go to trial; most end instead in guilty pleas. But that does not mean that time and money is spent on them in vain. The length of the sentence offered in a plea bargain can hinge on the strength of the prosecution’s case, and a thorough evaluation of the evidence can put defense lawyers in a stronger negotiating position.

Mr. Willey’s lawsuit offered the example of a client charged with breaking into a car. The client faced up to a year in jail, but Mr. Willey found “blatant inconsistencies” in police statements. When prosecutors declined to reduce the charge, he hired an investigator, the lawsuit says.

Ultimately the client was allowed to plead guilty to criminal mischief, the lowest class of misdemeanor, which carried no possible jail time and was eligible for expungement from his record, Mr. Willey said.

Yet Judge Ewing cut Mr. Willey’s request for $1,320 in pay on the case to $511, citing “excessive out-of-court hours,” according to the lawsuit. After Mr. Willey appealed, another judge approved the full amount.

A 2011 RAND Corporation study of more than 3,000 Philadelphia murder cases found that clients fared better when they were represented by a lawyer from an independent public defender organization than if they had one appointed by a judge: Their conviction rate was 19 percent lower; the chances that they would serve a life sentence were reduced by 62 percent; and their expected sentence length was 24 percent shorter.

“Judges have incentives to appoint counsel who file fewer pretrial motions, ask fewer questions during voir dire, raise fewer objections, and present fewer witnesses,” the study said.

And, experts say, that gives lawyers reason to push for a fast resolution, skipping thorough investigations or motions that might slow the docket or displease the judge. Some defense lawyers also fear that if they object too strenuously, their clients will be penalized.

“Public defense providers internalize, and try to figure out what it takes to get the next contract,” said David Carroll, executive director of the Sixth Amendment Center, a nonpartisan group that provides technical assistance on criminal justice matters to state and local policymakers. “A judge doesn’t actually have to say, ‘Don’t file any motions in my courtroom.’”

In a survey commissioned by the Texas bar in 2000, nearly half of the criminal court judges in Texas said that a lawyer’s “reputation for moving cases, regardless of the quality of defense” was sometimes or usually a factor in appointment decisions made by their peers.
Mr. Willey, four years out of law school, represents clients in misdemeanor and felony cases. Judge Ewing said Mr. Willey’s “inexperience leads him to tend to charge more hours than what normally would be approved.”

He recalled his conversations with Mr. Willey differently from how they are described in the lawsuit.

“I think I said, ‘I can’t be paying you five times or six times an attorney with 20 years’ more experience,’” Judge Ewing said. He added that he had reduced pay requests he deemed excessive from other lawyers as well.

Galveston County, Judge Ewing added, has safeguards to ensure defendants have lawyers with experience commensurate with the severity of charges they face.

“We are giving people the best representation they can get if they are indigent,” he said. “If that is truly Mr. Willey’s goal, then I’d say we have something in common.”


Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) Governor Patrick Njoroge who has been sued by Imperial Bank Shareholders.


Shareholders of collapsed Imperial Bank Limited wants Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) managers and Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) boss held liable over imperial bank collapse.

Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) Governor Patrick Njoroge his deputy Sheila Mbijiwe and KDIC boss Mohammud Mohammed have been sued in their personal capacity over alleged mismanaging Imperial Bank Limited (IBL) receivership.

Through Wandabwa Advocates, IBL shareholder together with their respective companies Imaran Limited, Reynolds & Company limited, East African Motor Industries (Sales & Services) limited Momentum Holdings Limited, Abdulmal Investment Limited and Kenblest Limited filed a fresh application at the Labor and Relations Court claiming that the two officials mismanaged IBL receivership.

On 13 of October 2015, the governor appointed Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) as a receiver of the Imperial Bank Limited for a period of twelve months and Peter Gatere was appointed as the Bank’s receiver-manager. The appointment also included a declaration of a moratorium on the bank.

“We are seeking orders from the court declaring the two liable and should be compelled to lead recovery efforts,” said Lawyer Wandabwa.

The new suit does not in any way affect the ongoing transaction, rather seeks to ensure that the end game is not liquidation.

The Shareholders have fought the bank’s liquidation since it went into receivership in October 2015.

In the application, they said CBK applied for a 12-month extension to receivership period to work on a recovery deal and the period comes to an end in 14 weeks.

According to the court documents, Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) confirms that they have continued to collect loans and have so far cumulatively collected over Ksh.10billion.

Patel and the others in the court documents said they are aggrieved by the conduct of the Central Bank during the period of the Bank’s receivership and omitting their statutory powers.

They claim that Njoroge, Sheila and Mohammud ought to have known that Peter Gatere, the receiver was not only an employee of CBK, a staff member of CBK’s supervision unit and a close confidant of the named culprits in the FTI Report and shown as having exchanged emails with the senior management of the Bank.

They added that they could have known that he was involved in the fraudulent activity of W.E. Tilley as far back as 2012, but culpable and otherwise complicit in the irregular disbursements from the Bank.

In the court documents,  the two are said to have aided and abetted the appointment of Peter Gatere as receiver-manager or otherwise failed to prevent his appointment in the circumstances with such appointment having been made with a view to covering up the truth behind the fraud at the Bank.

“In allowing DTB access to the Bank and/or the Bank’s records and data, Njoroge, Mbijiwe and Mohamud Mohammed have aided to cover up DTB’s role if any in handling the funds carried out on the Bank” the shareholders argued.

They contested that the governor, his deputy and the Chief Executive Officer of KDIC have not only failed to investigate, and or trace the money trail of the funds defrauded from the Bank through  Fidelity and DTB, but have actively protected and or propped them up with a view to burying the truth.

They further argued that the CBK and its officials have also failed to trace or otherwise take steps to trace, the funds known to have been disbursed from the Bank to various companies whose accounts were held at Fidelity and DTB.

The shareholders in the complaint said that Mr Njoroge has also allowed another financial institution, NIC Bank Limited (“NIC”) to benefit from the receivership process and the unrestricted access to data with the result that NIC has been able to open branches in the same vicinity as several of the Bank’s branches which could only have happened if NIC had access to the Bank’s customer base and data.

“Failure to protect the Bank’s value will result in further losses to depositors,” they said.

They said that In failing to trace the sums irregularly and illegally disbursed from the Bank, the three have refused to confirm that they were indeed not the beneficiaries of the amounts irregularly disbursed from the Bank, yet they still persist, acting at the behest of the Fourth and Fifth Defendants in maintaining unsubstantiated allegations against the Plaintiffs as relates to their alleged fraud as evidenced in various documents filed in Court.

They said that malicious conduct of Njoroge and his deputy is further compounded by the fact that there have been unjustified overheads maintained at the Bank since the commencement of its receivership, which has a net effect of eroding the Bank’s commercial.

They are further seeking to declare the governor, his deputy and KDIC boss have acted in misfeasance of public office.

They also want a declaration that the shareholders were unlawfully discriminated against in relations to the EOI process and they acted in excess of their powers as relates to the receivership of the bank.

The matter to be mentioned for further directions.


President Uhuru Kenyatta (center) Interior Cabinet Secretary Dr Fred Matiangi (left) and Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet during General Service Unit (GSU) pass out on Wednesday March 28,2018.

“State officers cannot continue to act in contempt and going about their business without respecting courts orders,” said the judge.


High Court has convicted Interior Cabinet Secretary Dr Fred Matiang’i, Inspector General Joseph Boinnet and Principal Secretary by then ( Immigration Director) Gordon Kihalangwa for contempt of court.

“Interior CS Fred Matiangi, Immigration PS (then director of Immigration) Gordon Khalangwa, Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet have by their conduct been contemptuous of the orders of this court and are convicted accordingly”. ruled Justice Odunga.

Justice George Odunga also summoned them to appear in court 10 am tomorrow for sentencing.

“The said respondent to personally appear before this Court tomorrow at 10.00 am for sentencing and further orders. In default of their appearance, the court will proceed to mete out appropriate sentences their absence notwithstanding” Judge Odunga further ordered.

Should they fail to appear in court in person, Justice Odunga said, the court will proceed to sentence them for contempt.

The judge further ordered the self-proclaimed general should not be moved outside jurisdiction of the court.

“It is hereby directed that the petitioner is not under any circumstances to be removed from the jurisdiction of this court. Instead, the petitioner is to be unconditionally released forthwith to appear this court tomorrow at 10.00 a.m”. Said Odunga.

The Judge further directed the order is applicable not to only the top government officials but to the officer’s working under them.

” This order binds not to only the respondents but also the officers under then in whose custody the petitioner has been placed”. Ordered Odunga.

He further directed Miguna Miguna lawyers are to be granted access to the petitioner.

The court also ruled unless MigunaMiguna is released, the said government officials will not be granted the right of audience by the court tomorrow.

Justice Odunga pointed out that this was not the first time the Interior CS was being penalised by the court for disobeying its orders. He said those who violated the constitution should take responsibility for their own actions.

“The case now is not about lawyer Miguna Miguna but about the dignity of the court which is being put to question as key executives have persistently acted with impunity,” he added on Tuesday.

“Court orders are not subject to the interpretation of the Executive. The laws are not silent. They may be changed but they speak the same language.” Court observed.

“Courts are not guided by ministers or political popularity; courts are guided by law and law alone. Court orders must be obeyed,” he ruled.

Miguna moved to court yesterday seeking his immediate release and be granted unrestricted right to enter the country and remain inthe country onthe basis of his Kenyan passport and his Kenyan National Identity card .

He also wants the court to prohibit the state from deporting.

In a petition filed by his lawyers John Khaminwa and Nelson Havin,Miguna Miguna says that the government have despite the court orders refused to allow him re-entry into the country and have attempted to unlawfully and forcefully remove him from the jurisdiction.

“The petitioner is currently being detained incommunicado in a toilet

At Terminal 2 at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport on Nairobi,”claims Nelson Havi.

In the affidavit Havi says that Miguna Miguna is entitled to re-enter the country unconditionally ,unhindered and unrestricted.

He furthur states that claims that Miguna is apprehensive following the government conduct that he will be tortured ,abused and illegally removed from the jurisdiction in order to frustrate the orders of the court.

“The respondents have unlawfully seized the petitioners Canadian passport in a clear attempt to have him declared stateless and continue to violate his fundamental rights and freedoms,”claims Havi.