The High Court’s Commercial and Tax Division entered judgment against John Fitzgerald Osogo in favour of LJA Associates LLP after finding that the firm was entitled to recover costs certified following taxation of its Advocate-Client Bill of Costs.

The dispute arose from legal services provided by LJA Associates when it represented Osogo before a tribunal appointed under Article 168(5)(b) of the Constitution to investigate the conduct of Justice Philip Kiptoo Tunoi.

The law firm had initially presented a bill of costs amounting to Sh9,074,728 on July 12, 2017, but the amount was substantially reduced by the Deputy Registrar following taxation.

On January 9, 2018, the taxing officer assessed the firm’s legal fees at Sh155,677.50, with a Certificate of Costs subsequently issued on December 16, 2021.

The firm moved to court seeking judgment for the certified amount, arguing that Osogo had failed to settle the fees despite being served with the bill and notice of taxation.

Justice Winnie Narasha Molonko found that the certificate of taxation had neither been challenged nor set aside, making the amount legally recoverable under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.

“The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby,” the law provides.

Judge Molonko noted that there was no evidence that Osogo had filed a reference challenging the taxation or obtained orders staying or setting aside the certificate.

She further found that the documents presented demonstrated the existence of an advocate-client relationship between the parties, with no dispute over the firm’s retainer.

“The certified amount is therefore final for purposes of Section 51(2),” Judge Molonko ruled.

However, the judge declined the firm’s request for interest at 14 per cent annually dating back to July 12, 2017.

LJA Associates had argued that it was entitled to interest from the date it filed its bill of costs, but the court found that it had failed to demonstrate compliance with Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

The rule requires an advocate to demonstrate that the bill was delivered to the client, one month elapsed without payment, and notice of the intention to charge interest was given before settlement.

The court observed that although the bill was served through registered post on October 6, 2017, the firm had not established that it had notified Osogo of its intention to charge interest before payment.

Nevertheless, the judge ruled that the law firm was entitled to interest at court rates from the date judgment was entered until payment in full.

The court explained that once judgment is entered, the certified costs acquire the character of a judgment debt, attracting interest under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The post Court orders John Osogo to pay lawyer Sh155,677 in legal fees over ex-Judge Philip Tunoi removal case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In an application filed before the High Court, COFEK wants conservatory orders barring Mungai from exercising the powers and functions of the state agency’s chairperson pending the hearing and determination of a petition challenging her appointment.

The consumer lobby is also seeking to have the application certified as urgent, arguing that her continued stay in office raises serious constitutional questions concerning integrity, accountability and compliance with the law governing public appointments.

Mungai was appointed chairperson of Athi Water on August 8, 2025, by then Water, Sanitation and Irrigation Cabinet Secretary Eric Mugaa in a gazette notice issued on the same day.

Her appointment followed a reshuffle in which President William Ruto appointed Charles Kamau Karondo to replace her as Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) chairperson, while Mugaa appointed her to take over Karondo’s position at Athi Water.

Through its representative Stephen Mutoro, COFEK argues that Mungai’s appointment was subject to the mandatory requirements of Section 66 and the First Schedule of the Water Act, 2016, as well as constitutional provisions on integrity and suitability for public office.

The organisation says the appointment raises questions about whether the government adequately considered the allegations of conflict of interest that had emerged during her previous tenure at the Communications Authority.

The latest court action follows a September 3, 2026, judgment by the High Court in Constitutional Petition No. E683 of 2024, in which Justice Lawrence Mugambi quashed an advisory opinion issued by the Attorney General concerning the allegations against Mungai.

The judge ruled that investigating allegations of conflict of interest fell within the constitutional mandate of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), rather than the Attorney General’s office.

Justice Mugambi declared that the advisory opinion issued by Solicitor General Shadrack Mose on October 1, 2024, was unconstitutional and had no legal effect.

“The resulting opinion is thus unconstitutional and of no legal effect,” the judge ruled.

However, the court did not make a determination on whether Mungai had actually engaged in conflict of interest, leaving the substantive allegations for investigation by the EACC.

Following the judgment, COFEK lodged a formal complaint with the anti-graft agency on September 4, 2026, seeking investigations into the allegations arising from Mungai’s previous tenure at the Communications Authority.

In a letter dated October 14, 2026, the commission confirmed that it had taken up the complaint for investigation.

The underlying dispute involves allegations surrounding the award of Digital Super Highway project tenders to Nightigale Enterprises Limited, later renamed Nightigale (EA) Limited, a company COFEK links to Mungai’s family through her daughter’s previous shareholding.

COFEK has raised questions about the company’s ownership changes, possible beneficial ownership arrangements and whether conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements were observed during the procurement process.

The federation now argues that the unresolved questions should be considered when determining whether Mungai met the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointment to another public office.

It warns that allowing her to continue exercising the functions of chairperson while the issues remain under investigation risks undermining accountability and integrity in public administration.

The court is being asked to suspend her immediately pending the hearing of the application and subsequently until the main petition is determined.

The allegations against Mungai have not been established as findings of wrongdoing, and the EACC investigation remains a separate process.

The post COFEK moves to court to Suspend Mary Wambui Mungai from Athi Water Agency appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Justice Freda Mugambi dismissed the former Imenti Central MP’s case challenging the bank’s decision to sell the property, ruling that Ecobank had followed the law in exercising its statutory power of sale.

In a judgment delivered on October 2, 2026, Justice Mugambi said the bank had fulfilled its legal obligations before disposing of the property through a public auction in March 2016.

“I therefore find that the Bank lawfully exercised its statutory power of sale and complied with its duty of care under section 97 of the Land Act. I answer Issue 2 in the affirmative,” the judge ruled.

The property, identified as LR No. 13460/19 in Karen, was sold to businessman Opondo Isaac Ochieng for Sh47 million after Imanyara failed to clear loans advanced to him by the bank.

The dispute originated in 2009 when Ecobank extended financial facilities of Sh33.5 million to Imanyara, comprising a Sh11 million term loan and a Sh22.5 million mortgage facility.

The mortgage was intended to finance the construction of a residential house on the Karen property, which was subsequently charged to the bank as security for the facilities.

However, Imanyara fell behind on repayments, prompting the bank to issue a statutory notice in March 2013 demanding payment of the outstanding debt.

The parties later entered negotiations, with the bank giving the lawyer an opportunity to identify a private buyer for the property and use the proceeds to settle the outstanding loan.

In a letter dated June 6, 2013, Ecobank allowed him two months to find a purchaser, warning that it would proceed with recovery measures if no progress was made.

Imanyara argued that the arrangement prevented the bank from proceeding with a public auction, but the judge rejected his interpretation.

The court found that the two-month arrangement had expired on August 6, 2013, without a buyer being presented.

Justice Mugambi observed that the bank had expressly reserved its right to pursue recovery proceedings if the private-sale arrangement did not materialise within the agreed period.

The judge further noted that Imanyara subsequently applied for and accepted an enhancement of his loan facility, signing additional security documents.

Another major issue was whether Ecobank obtained the best price reasonably available when it sold the property.

The bank presented two forced-sale valuations conducted in July and August 2015, placing the property’s value at Sh37 million and Sh36.375 million respectively.

Imanyara, however, relied on a valuation placing the property at Sh76.5 million, arguing that the bank had sold it below its actual value.

Justice Mugambi rejected the argument, noting that the lawyer had failed to produce the valuer who prepared the report to testify.

The judge found that there was no evidence that a higher offer had been rejected or that the bank and auctioneer had colluded to depress the property’s price.

“The burden of showing that the market had risen in that period, and that a better price was reasonably obtainable, rested on him under section 107 of the Evidence Act,” the judge stated.

She added that Imanyara had not presented evidence demonstrating that the property could have fetched a higher price at the time of the auction.

The court also rejected his challenge to the ownership of the property by Ochieng, finding that the businessman had purchased it in good faith and without knowledge of any dispute between Imanyara and the bank.

Ochieng had paid a deposit of Sh11.75 million at the fall of the hammer but failed to clear the remaining balance within the stipulated 90 days.

Ecobank subsequently extended the payment period, allowing him to complete the transaction and settle the purchase price together with a late payment fee of approximately Sh1.9 million.

Imanyara had argued that the delayed payment invalidated the transaction and that the subsequent financing arrangement between Ecobank and the buyer compromised the auction.

However, Justice Mugambi found that the bank had discretion to extend the payment period and that the financing arrangement did not undermine the fairness of the sale.

“The financing could not have influenced the price, which was fixed by the bidding,” the judge ruled.

She further found that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate fraud, collusion or an illegal transaction in the transfer of the property.

On the outstanding loan, the bank had sought Sh91,759,103.66, representing the balance after applying the net proceeds from the auction to Imanyara’s account.

The lawyer challenged the computation, arguing that the bank had violated the in duplum rule under Section 44A of the Banking Act, which limits the amount recoverable from non-performing loans.

However, the court found that Ecobank had produced certified statements of account supporting its computation and that Imanyara had failed to identify specific errors in the records.

“I find the balance of KShs.91,759,103.66 as at 10th July 2017 proved and within the statutory limit,” Justice Mugambi ruled.

The judge, however, declined to award the bank additional contractual and penal interest dating back to July 2017, noting that the claim would exceed the statutory limits.

She instead awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.

In her final orders, Justice Mugambi dismissed Imanyara’s re-amended plaint dated April 13, 2021, and allowed Ecobank’s counterclaim.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the bank for Sh91,759,103.66, with interest at court rates until the amount is fully paid.

Imanyara was also ordered to pay the costs of his suit, Ecobank’s counterclaim and Ochieng’s costs of the proceedings.

The post Lawyer Gitobu Imanyara loses Sh47m Karen property fight as court awards Ecobank Sh91.7m appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Eliud Wachira Limuyu appeared before Principal Magistrate Daisy Mutai, where he denied the charges brought against him by the prosecution.

The prosecution alleged that Limuyu obtained the money from Tonny Ketter by falsely representing that he had the capacity to develop a mobile gaming application and a chemical weapon detector.

The alleged offences are said to have occurred between 2020 and 2024 in Nairobi County.

The prosecution did not oppose the accused’s release on bond or cash bail. However, a lawyer representing the complainant, Chatia Ebwoyele, raised concerns over the safety of the complainant and other potential prosecution witnesses should the accused be released.

Ebwoyele told the court that Limuyu had allegedly threatened the complainant while being held at Muthaiga Police Station, arguing that his release could expose the complainant and other witnesses to possible harm.

The lawyer also challenged the probation officer’s report presented to the court to guide the determination of bail terms, questioning its credibility and completeness.

He argued that the report did not disclose the accused’s place of residence or identify the individuals interviewed by the probation officer before its preparation.

Ebwoyele further questioned how the report could have been prepared within one day, saying the circumstances surrounding its preparation raised suspicion.

Despite the objections, the court exercised its discretion and ordered Limuyu to deposit a cash bail of Sh5 million, alongside two sureties of a similar amount.

The magistrate also granted him an alternative bond of Sh10 million, subject to the provision of one contact person.

The matter will be mentioned on November 10, 2026, for a pre-trial conference.

The post NovaGames Director Charged Over Alleged Sh122 Million Fraud appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Mulwa was re-arrested by detectives minutes after the prosecution informed the court that DPP Renson Ingonga had recommended murder charges against her, her mother Rose Mbithe Mulwa, and her brother Chris Mulwa over the killing of Dr Victoria Nthunya Mutiso.

The dramatic development came after State prosecutor Jalson Makori confirmed before Milimani Magistrate Joan Mati that a murder charge had been filed at the High Court earlier on Monday.

The case has been registered as High Court case E004 of 2026, paving the way for the State to move from the investigations stage to substantive murder proceedings.

Makori told the court that the filing of the murder charge had prompted the prosecution to withdraw a fresh application by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations seeking to detain Mulwa for 14 days.

“We have demonstrated to court that now we are formally charging the respondent for an offence of murder,” Makori told the court.

The prosecution argued that Mulwa’s existing Sh1 million bond related to a separate matter pending before the Mavoko Law Courts and involved different allegations.

The Mavoko case concerns allegations of forgery of a title deed, malicious damage to property and theft of motor vehicles linked to Dr Mutiso and her husband, Professor David Musyimi Ndetei.

Makori subsequently asked the magistrate to withdraw Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 3856 of 2026, which had sought orders allowing detectives to detain Mulwa for a further 14 days.

Magistrate Mati allowed the withdrawal after being informed that the murder case had already been filed at the High Court.

“The applicant has stated that a charge has been filed at the High Court in E004 of 2026, which was registered this morning. The applicant has moved to withdraw the application,” Mati said.

She then ordered: “Based on the above, the application to withdraw the application is hereby allowed. This file is closed.”

Minutes after the court proceedings, detectives re-arrested Mulwa outside the Milimani Law Courts.

She is expected to be presented before the High Court on Tuesday, August 25, 2026, to face the murder charge.

The prosecution is also expected to pursue murder charges against Mulwa’s mother, Rose Mbithe Mulwa, and her brother, Chris Mulwa, an advocate of the High Court.

Other suspects previously linked to the investigation include Police Constable Elijah Kibelion Kimoi, Daniel Mwangi Njoroge and boda boda rider Kevin Ngugi Kinuthia.

The DPP’s decision follows allegations contained in DCI investigation papers linking Mulwa to events surrounding Dr Mutiso’s killing.

Investigators allege that Mulwa was present on April 24, 2026, when Sh300,000 was allegedly paid as a down payment for an earlier attempt to have Dr Mutiso killed.

In an application filed in court, Corporal Romana Oduor, an investigator attached to the DCI Homicide Investigations Bureau, stated:

“She was present on April 24, 2026, during the payment of the Ksh300,000 down payment for the deceased to be murdered, which failed to materialise.”

The DCI alleges that the earlier attempt failed but formed part of a wider plot that eventually culminated in Dr Mutiso’s murder.

Investigators have further linked Mulwa to Inspector Kenneth Kipkemboi Sang, a senior police officer whom the DCI has identified as an alleged link between the financiers and the operational team.

Police have alleged that a firearm associated with Sang was used in the killing, with investigators relying on ballistic evidence recovered during the probe.

The DCI is also investigating Mulwa’s alleged involvement in the eviction and demolition of property linked to Dr Mutiso, which detectives are examining as part of the circumstances surrounding the alleged motive.

Investigators have previously described Mulwa as having allegedly played a vital role in the events leading to the killing and expressed concerns about possible interference with witnesses and other suspects.

Dr Mutiso was shot dead on July 29, 2026, while travelling in Nairobi’s Upper Hill area.

The post DPP Recommends Murder Charges Against Angela Mulwa, Mother and Brother Over Dr Mutiso Killing appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Mutegi appeared before Milimani Anti-Corruption Chief Magistrate Harrison Baraza on Monday August 24,2026 and pleaded not guilty to two corruption charges of requesting Sh170,000 and receiving Sh150,000 to influence the outcome of a criminal sentence

The court subsequently released him on a Sh400,000 cash bail or an alternative bond of Sh800,000 pending the hearing and determination of the case.

As part of the bail terms, Barasa ordered Mutegi not to interfere directly or indirectly with any prosecution witness during the pendency of the trial.

Mutegi’s plea was taken after Chief Magistrate Barasa rejected an attempt by his lawyers to stop or defer the proceedings.

The defence had sought to have the plea-taking delayed pending the determination of a separate application before the High Court.

However, Barasa found that there was no court order before him barring the Anti-Corruption Court from proceeding with the case.

The court consequently directed Mutegi to take plea and respond to the charges against him.

According to the charge sheet, Mutegi allegedly requested Sh170,000 between July 16 and July 21, 2026, through Kangema Law Courts Principal Probation Officer Julius Irungu Njogu.

The money was allegedly sought in exchange for influencing the sentence of a convicted businessman who was due to appear before Mutegi for sentencing in Kangema Chief Magistrate’s Criminal Case No. E645 of 2024.

The prosecution alleges that the accused magistrate sought the money to facilitate a favourable outcome that would enable the convicted businessman to avoid a custodial sentence.

The second count alleges that Mutegi received Sh150,000 on July 21, 2026, through Njogu, as part of the alleged bribery arrangement.

The alleged offences are said to have occurred between July 16 and July 21, 2026, in Kangema Township, Murang’a County.

The case followed a complaint lodged by the businessman, who told investigators that Njogu had approached him claiming to be acting on behalf of Mutegi.

Njogu allegedly demanded Sh170,000 and indicated that the money would help secure a favourable probation report and sentence.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) subsequently mounted a sting operation to investigate the allegations.

Mutegi and Njogu were arrested on July 21, 2026, at a restaurant in Kangema Township after allegedly receiving Sh150,000 from the complainant.

The arrest prompted disciplinary action against Mutegi within the Judiciary.

Chief Justice Martha Koome, acting in her capacity as chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission, suspended Mutegi on July 22 and commenced disciplinary proceedings against him under the Judicial Service Act.

Mutegi had earlier failed to appear before the Anti-Corruption Court to take plea.

His lawyers informed the court that he was unwell and had been admitted to hospital, prompting the court to defer the plea-taking and order him to appear at a later date.

The court later issued summons requiring him to attend and answer to the charges.

His co-accused, Julius Irungu Njogu, the Kangema Law Courts Principal Probation Officer, had already been arraigned in connection with the alleged scheme.

Njogu pleaded not guilty to two counts of receiving a bribe and was released on a Sh400,000 cash bail or an alternative Sh800,000 bond.

The matter will return to court for mention on September 7, 2026 for pre-trial directions

The post Suspended Kangema Magistrate Denies Bribery Charges, Freed on Bail appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Justice Roselyn Aburili ruled that Maingi should first have pursued remedies available under the Data Protection Act before approaching the High Court.

The judge held that although the High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction over data protection disputes, Maingi had not exhausted the statutory mechanism provided through the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC).

“I find that whereas this Court retains ultimate supervisory jurisdiction, and parties aggrieved by the Data Commissioner’s findings can appeal directly to the High Court, this Court lacks initial jurisdiction over the petition because the Petitioner did not first exhaust alternative remedies by filing a complaint with the Data Protection Commissioner,” Justice Aburili ruled.

Maingi had claimed that Java House violated his rights to privacy, dignity, publicity and information by using his photograph without his prior informed consent.

According to court documents, Maingi was employed by Java House as a steward from January 2015 until July 2021, when he was summarily dismissed following disciplinary proceedings over allegations of theft and lack of integrity.

He told the court that photographs of him wearing company-branded merchandise had been taken during his employment and that he later discovered in December 2021 that Java House was using his image and name on an online recruitment platform.

Maingi argued that his image had been published globally without his informed consent and sought a declaration that his constitutional rights had been violated, as well as general damages.

He had asked the court to award him Sh10 million in compensation.

Java House opposed the petition, arguing that the photographs had been taken with Maingi’s knowledge and voluntary consent during his employment.

The company also relied on Clause 11 of his employment contract, arguing that it assigned intellectual property rights in works made for hire to the company and waived moral rights.

Java House maintained that Maingi’s photograph was used only as a profile image on its Shortlist recruitment portal to accurately represent staff and was not used for commercial marketing or monetary gain.

The company later removed the image after Maingi raised his complaint, while denying liability.

Justice Aburili, however, did not determine whether Java House actually violated Maingi’s privacy or image rights.

The judge found that the central complaint fell within the Data Protection Act, which regulates the processing of personal data and establishes mechanisms for resolving complaints.

“The petitioner has not demonstrated that he filed any complaint with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner or that the remedies under the Data Protection Act are ineffective,” the judge said.

The court further held that constitutional litigation should not be the first avenue where an effective statutory mechanism exists.

“In the end, I find that the petitioner failed to exhaust the available effective dispute resolution mechanisms and to adhere to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance,” Justice Aburili ruled.

Consequently, the judge struck out the petition but allowed Maingi to pursue redress under the Data Protection Act.

“Accordingly, the Petition dated 21st March 2022 is hereby struck out. The petitioner is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the Data Protection Act for redress,” the judge ordered.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, bringing the constitutional petition to an end.

The post Win for Java House as Court Strikes Out Image Rights Case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Narok High Court Judge Charles Kariuki ordered the case file to be placed before Chief Justice Martha Koome after finding that the petition raises substantial questions of law under Article 165(4) of the Constitution.

“The Petition therefore presents an appropriate case in which an expanded bench may consider and develop the jurisprudence governing the constitutional limits of investigative measures undertaken in the enforcement of anti-FGM legislation,” Justice Kariuki said.

The petition was filed by Sofia Rajab and six others and concerns women and girls who are victims or suspected victims of female genital mutilation (FGM) and who have allegedly been arrested, charged and detained under sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act.

Justice Kariuki said the petition raises constitutional questions concerning the enforcement of the anti-FGM law, including whether suspects can be subjected to compulsory genital examinations during criminal investigations.

He directed the Deputy Registrar to forthwith transmit the Court file together with a copy of this ruling to the Honourable the Chief Justice for consideration and assignment of an uneven bench of not less than three Judges to hear and determine the Petition.

The judge said the matter raises questions touching on human dignity, privacy, bodily integrity, equality, freedom and security of the person and fair trial rights.

“A compulsory genital examination is not an ordinary investigative act. It potentially involves an intrusion into bodily integrity, sexual privacy, dignity and personal autonomy,” Justice Kariuki said.

He said the issue was whether such investigations complied with the constitutional requirements of legality, necessity, proportionality and procedural safeguards.

The judge noted that the State has a constitutional obligation to eradicate FGM but said that obligation must be balanced against the rights of people subjected to criminal investigations.

“The State has a legitimate and constitutionally compelling obligation to protect women and girls from harmful practices and to enforce the law against FGM,” he said.

“That obligation, however, does not place persons suspected of being victims of FGM outside the protection of the Constitution.”

Justice Kariuki identified several substantial questions, including the constitutional limits of investigative powers where bodily integrity and privacy are implicated, the relationship between the Prohibition of FGM Act and the Constitution, protection of vulnerable persons and whether evidence obtained through intrusive medical or genital examinations can be used in criminal proceedings.

The petition also questions the interpretation and application of sections 20 and 24 of the anti-FGM law.

However, the judge clarified that neither provision expressly creates a power to conduct compulsory genital examinations.

“Neither provision, on its face, expressly creates a power to conduct compulsory genital examinations,” he said.

The judge said the substantive petition will determine whether the investigative practices complained of had a sufficient legal basis and complied with constitutional protections.

He noted that the precise constitutional questions concerning compulsory or allegedly compulsory genital examinations in FGM investigations had not been definitively determined by Kenya’s superior courts.

“The constitutional questions arising from compulsory or allegedly compulsory genital examinations in the investigation of FGM offences do not appear to have received a definitive determination by the superior courts in Kenya in the precise factual and statutory context presented by this Petition,” Justice Kariuki said.

The judge said the case has implications for law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors, medical practitioners and trial courts, and could contribute to the development of constitutional jurisprudence.

He nevertheless cautioned that certification was not a determination of the petition’s merits.

“Certification does not amount to a determination of the merits of the Petition. Neither does it signify that the Petitioners will ultimately succeed,” he said.

Justice Kariuki further clarified that the ruling should not be interpreted as questioning Kenya’s prohibition of FGM.

“The State has a clear constitutional and international obligation to protect women and girls from harmful practices. The issue for determination is whether the means employed in enforcing that obligation conform to the Constitution.”

The court allowed the petitioners’ March 20, 2026 application and certified Constitutional Petition No. E007 of 2025 as raising substantial questions of law.

The Deputy Registrar was ordered to transmit the file to Chief Justice Koome for consideration and appointment of an uneven bench of not less than three judges.

The post High Court refers FGM enforcement petition to CJ Koome appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has filed an objection to a Petition of Appeal by Huelands Limited and Afrison Export Import Limited, challenging the July 3, 2026 decision of the Court of Appeal over disputed land parcel LR No. 7879/4 in Ruaraka.

The parcel partly hosts Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.

In the objection filed on August 4, EACC, listed as the seventh respondent in Supreme Court Petition No. E025 of 2026, argues that the two companies have failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to invoke the apex court’s jurisdiction.

The Commission wants the petition struck out, accusing the companies of attempting to introduce new constitutional questions while asking the Supreme Court to revisit factual findings that have already been settled by the lower courts.

“The Petition of Appeal is misconceived, frivolous, and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court, as it fails to satisfy the threshold for invoking this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution,” EACC advocate Jackie Kibogy states.

At the heart of the dispute is about 13.5 acres occupied by the two public schools and whether the land was private property subject to compulsory acquisition and compensation or had already become public land after being surrendered to the Government.

Court records show Afrison Export Import Limited and Huelands Limited acquired the larger 96-acre parcel from Joreth Limited in 1981.

The companies were closely associated with the late businessman Francis Mburu, who featured prominently in compensation claims and subsequent court proceedings over the property.

The dispute intensified after the National Land Commission moved to compulsorily acquire about 13.77 acres occupied by Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.

The NLC valued the portion at Sh3.269 billion and subsequently paid Sh1.5 billion to the two companies, leaving a balance of about Sh1.769 billion.

The payment triggered public controversy, parliamentary scrutiny and a series of legal proceedings over whether public funds had been lawfully used to compensate the companies for land already belonging to the State.

EACC challenged the legality of the payment, arguing that the portion occupied by the schools had already been surrendered to the Government as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.

The issue eventually found its way through the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal.

The latest chapter began with a 2018 reference before the Environment and Land Court filed by then-NLC chairperson Prof Muhammad Swazuri.

The reference sought, among other issues, to establish whether the process through which the land occupied by the schools was acquired complied with the Constitution and whether public money had been lost.

The Environment and Land Court subsequently determined issues surrounding the disputed land, prompting Huelands and Afrison to move to the Court of Appeal.

On July 3, 2026, the appellate court ruled against the two companies, holding that approximately 13.5 acres occupied by the schools was public land and that the compulsory acquisition and Sh1.5 billion compensation were unlawful.

EACC subsequently announced that it would pursue recovery of the Sh1.5 billion.

The companies have now moved to the Supreme Court through Petition of Appeal No. E025 of 2026, challenging the Court of Appeal decision.

EACC’s objection is built around nine grounds, principally arguing that the appeal does not raise a proper constitutional question capable of triggering the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a).

The Commission accuses the appellants of seeking to introduce constitutional issues that were neither pleaded nor canvassed before the lower courts.

According to EACC, the companies are relying on constitutional provisions that were not considered or determined by the Environment and Land Court or the Court of Appeal.

The watchdog argues that the Supreme Court cannot be used as a forum to introduce fresh constitutional questions that were never litigated before the courts below.

EACC also objects to the companies’ challenge to the finding that the 13.5 acres were surrendered as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.

The Commission says both the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal made concurrent findings on the issue.

It argues that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating evidence merely because an appellant is dissatisfied with findings made by the lower courts.

“Having made concurrent findings of fact on that issue, the Petition of Appeal seeks to invite this Honourable Court to re-evaluate the evidence and interfere with those findings, contrary to its appellate jurisdiction,” EACC states.

The Commission therefore wants the Supreme Court to reject what it considers an attempt to turn a factual dispute into a constitutional appeal.

Another central issue in the objection is the legal distinction between surrender of land and compulsory acquisition.

The companies have challenged the consequences of the lower courts’ finding that part of the property had been surrendered, apparently maintaining that the taking of the land amounted to compulsory acquisition for which compensation was payable.

EACC rejects that argument, maintaining that surrender and compulsory acquisition have different legal consequences.

“Surrender and compulsory acquisition are distinct legal concepts recognized under the Constitution and the law,” the Commission states.

It relies on Article 62(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides that public land includes land that has been surrendered to the State by virtue of a condition imposed by a law or instrument.

EACC’s position is that the legal character of the 13.5 acres cannot be changed from surrendered land to compulsorily acquired private property simply because the companies disagree with the lower courts’ findings.

The Commission maintains that the issue was fully considered and determined by the courts below and cannot now be reopened through a fresh constitutional argument before the Supreme Court.

The Ruaraka dispute has attracted considerable public interest because of the billions of shillings involved and the fact that the contested property hosts public schools.

The controversy has also placed the conduct of public institutions under scrutiny, particularly the National Land Commission and its handling of compensation claims.

The legal battle has consequently drawn in several government agencies and individuals.

Besides EACC, the Supreme Court petition lists the National Land Commission, Nairobi City County Government, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Patrick Thoithi Kanyuira among the respondents.

EACC is asking the Supreme Court to strike out the Petition of Appeal in its entirety.

Alternatively, the Commission wants the court to dismiss the appeal with costs, arguing that it is otherwise devoid of merit and does not disclose a genuine constitutional question warranting the intervention of the apex court.

At the centre of the objection is the constitutional limit on the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

EACC’s case is that the apex court is not another forum for parties to reopen factual disputes or introduce constitutional questions that were never litigated and determined by the courts below.

The companies, however, have moved to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, setting the stage for another legal battle over the disputed Ruaraka property.

The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is therefore whether Huelands and Afrison have satisfied the constitutional threshold for the court to hear their appeal.

If EACC succeeds, the petition will be struck out without the Supreme Court determining the substantive issues raised by the two companies.

The post EACC moves to block fresh Supreme Court appeal over Ruaraka schools land appeared first on Insider Bits News.

A pre-sentence report filed at the Milimani High Court recommends that the 64-year-old former governor be considered for a non-custodial sentence over Sharon murder, citing his age, health status, lack of previous criminal convictions, eight years of compliance with bond terms and extensive family and community support.

The report, prepared by the Probation and Aftercare Service and dated August 17, 2026, was authored by Assistant Director of Probation Benard Musitia after interviews with Obado at Kamiti Maximum Prison, his spouse, children, siblings, local administration officials and community members in Migori County.

Obado was convicted on July 23, 2026, alongside his former personal assistant Michael Juma Oyamo and former Migori official Caspal Ajwang Obiero for the murder of Rongo University student Sharon Belyne Otieno.

Justice Cecilia Githua found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the three acted in concert in Sharon’s killing.

Sharon, 26, was seven months pregnant and pursuing a Diploma in Medical Records at Rongo University when she was killed between September 3 and 4, 2018, in Owade area, Rachuonyo Sub-County, Homa Bay County.

The probation report says Obado continues to deny responsibility for the murder.

He admitted having an intimate relationship with Sharon between November 2017 and March 2018 but claimed he ended it over what he described as “incessant demands” and “dishonesty”.

Obado told probation officers that he had offered to support Sharon’s pregnancy pending a DNA test and maintained that he was in Nairobi when she was killed .

He denied prior knowledge of the murder but acknowledged entrusting Oyamo with “handling issues” relating to Sharon.

The report states that Obado does not accept responsibility for the offence and attributes his conviction to political woes and machinations to soil his character.

His family and community members, however, urged the court to consider leniency.

Obado’s siblings led by family spokesperson Okoth Daudi have described him as a unifying figure who financed relatives’ education and served as an economic pillar for the family.

Community members, including Migori County Commissioner Musili Mutua and area Chief Silvanus Awiti, reportedly raised no objection to a non-custodial sentence, citing his philanthropic activities, including sponsoring students, drilling boreholes and supporting church construction.

The plea for leniency comes against the backdrop of a separate victim impact report detailing the devastating consequences of Sharon’s murder on her family.

The report, compiled by Principal Probation Officer Salome Muthoni and dated August 17, states that Sharon’s parents, Douglas Zacharia Otieno and Melida Auma, sold their one-acre parcel of land and a cow to meet expenses arising from the eight-year trial.

The family estimates that attending court proceedings over the last seven to eight years cost about Sh1.2 million in transport, accommodation and food.

The family also incurred about Sh3.5 million in burial and funeral expenses.

The report describes the family as being of low socio-economic means, with Sharon’s father engaged in peasant farming and her mother, a former ECDE teacher, having stopped working after her daughter’s death.

Sharon left behind three children, now aged 12, 11 and nine, who are being raised by their maternal grandmother.

The report paints a family still gripped by fear, eight years on.

“The family still lives in fear since the other persons of interest in the heinous act were unknown and still at large,” the report states, adding that uncertainty over what the unidentified accomplices were planning had left the family with a fear of the unknown and a developed form of phobia.

They also told the probation officer they remain afraid of Obado’s aides Oyamo and Obiero specifically, whom they regard as bearing the greatest burden that led to the death of their beloved one, and are uncertain what will follow once sentence is passed.

The report also says the family continues to experience severe psychological trauma, with members having lost weight, do not get enough sleep and suffering moods, reactions, psychological trauma and flashbacks.

Sharon’s father has also taken into alcoholism in the name of assisting him forget what happened and frequently holds her photo for memories, according to the report.

The report also reveals attempts of reconciliation efforts between Sharon’s family and Obado’s relatives.

At a meeting on August 10, the families agreed that Obado had made some promises to the deceased and they were still committed to have them fulfilled.

The report says there was no animosity and hostility during the meetings and that Sharon’s family have mourned enough and are ready to forgive those who wronged them.

The victim impact report  presented to Justice Githua yesterday August 18, 2026 recommends that the court consider the totality of the findings in this report while dispensing justice at sentencing.

Judge further directed the matter be mentioned September 16,2026 for mitigation, the three will remain in custody pending sentencing.

The post Obado seeks non-custodial sentence as Sharon Otieno’s family reveals Sh4.7m trial burden appeared first on Insider Bits News.