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.

Justice Nzioki wa Makau issued the interim orders at the Kisumu Employment and Labour Relations Court after Joan Machuma Nyongesa moved to court questioning the legality of Mainga’s continued stay in office.

The case, ELRCPET/E037/2026, has placed Mainga’s tenure under judicial scrutiny, with Kenya Railways Corporation, its Board of Directors, the Public Service Commission, the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport and the Attorney General named as respondents.

Justice Makau ordered that the application be served for an inter partes hearing on August 18, 2026.

The court further directed the respondents to file and serve their replies within three days of receiving the application.

In granting the interim relief, the judge stated: “That pending hearing inter partes, interim orders in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3 are granted.”

Among the orders sought by Nyongesa was an order stopping Mainga, his agents, servants, appointees or anyone acting under his direction from occupying or exercising the powers of the Kenya Railways CEO.

The application seeks to restrain Mainga from occupying, holding himself out as, representing himself as, or exercising any of the powers, duties and functions of Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the corporation.

The judge further ordered that the operation of any purported extension or renewal of Mainga’s tenure be suspended.

The order provides that “the operation and implementation of any decision, instrument, resolution, extension, renewal, reappointment or administrative arrangement purporting to authorise the 3rd Respondent’s continued occupation or exercise of the office after the apparent expiry of the last lawful term be suspended.”

The petitioner claims Mainga’s first substantive three-year term began on February 3, 2020, and ended on February 2, 2023.

She has questioned the legality of his continued occupation of the office following a reported renewal of his appointment in January 2023.

Nyongesa argues that the legality of the renewal and subsequent exercise of the CEO’s powers should be determined by the court.

She has raised concerns over the potential consequences of decisions made by the corporation while Mainga’s mandate remains disputed, pointing to Kenya Railways’ major infrastructure projects, contracts and management of public resources.

The petitioner has also argued that stopping Mainga from exercising the CEO’s powers would not cripple the corporation.

She says the Kenya Railways Board can appoint a qualified acting chief executive while the dispute is determined and, if necessary, undertake a fresh recruitment process.

The petitioner wants the court to determine whether Mainga has a lawful mandate to remain in office and exercise the powers of Managing Director and CEO.

She is also seeking directions on the lawful process of succession and recruitment should the court find that his tenure is not legally valid.

The respondents have not yet filed their responses to the application.

The matter will return before Justice Makau on August 18, when the parties will make their respective arguments.

The interim orders do not amount to a final finding that Mainga’s tenure is illegal.

The substantive question concerning the validity of his continued occupation of the office remains before the court.

The post Court freezes extension of Kenya Railways boss Philip Mainga’s tenure appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Ally Ahmed Ally appeared before Milimani chief magistrate Gergi Kibiru, where he pleaded not guilty to one count of stealing by agent contrary to Section 283(b) of the Penal Code.

According to the charge sheet, the prosecution alleges that between November 16, 2023 and January 3, 2024, within Nairobi City County, Ally, while acting as an agent of Quba Real Estate Limited, stole Sh49,400,500 that had been entrusted to him for the purchase of Land Parcel Nairobi/Block/42/895, allegedly belonging to Julius Macharia Waweru and Eva Muthoni Waweru.

The prosecution told the court that the funds belonged to Quba Real Estate Limited and had been entrusted to the advocate solely for the completion of the land transaction.

The accused, who was arrested on August 3, 2026, denied the allegations when the charge was read to him.

In seeking his release, defence counsel urged the court to grant the advocate reasonable bail terms, arguing that he is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and would faithfully comply with any conditions imposed by the court.

The defence further submitted that there are ongoing civil proceedings relating to the dispute, urging the court to take that into account when determining bail.

After considering the submissions, Chief Magistrate Kibiru ordered that the accused be released on a bond of Sh10 million with an alternative cash bail of Sh2 million pending trial.

The court also directed that the matter be mentioned for pre-trial after 14 days.

The charges stem from investigations by detectives from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) Nairobi Regional Office, who allege that the money was remitted to the advocate on different dates to facilitate the purchase of the Nairobi property.

Investigators claim that instead of completing the transaction as agreed, the accused allegedly diverted the funds, prompting investigations that culminated in his arrest and arraignment.

The advocate now awaits the commencement of pre-trial proceedings as the prosecution prepares to present its evidence in the case.

The post Advocate Charged Over Alleged Sh49.4 Million Land Transaction Fraud appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The dramatic outburst forced Justice Alexander Muteti to briefly halt proceedings before restoring calm and directing Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) Mohamed Amin to personally appear before him on Monday to explain the whereabouts of the three missing men.

The emotional scenes erupted moments after lawyers representing the Inspector General and the DCI informed the court that the two security chiefs had failed to honour summons requiring them to appear in person because they were attending an urgent security planning meeting.

State counsel Paul Nyamodi told the court that the Inspector General and the DCI Director were unavailable due to official engagements and requested the court to assign another date for their attendance.

“The Inspector General and the DCI Director are involved in an urgent security planning meeting. If the court still requires their attendance, we request another date and time when they can appear,” Nyamodi submitted.

He further told the court that senior police officers, including the OCSs of Buruburu and Ruai police stations, the Buruburu Sub-County Criminal Investigations Officer and the Nairobi Regional Police Commander, had attended the proceedings on behalf of the respondents.

Nyamodi maintained that the three missing men, Macmillan Kiarie Mugo, Evans Otieno Omondi and Michael Oloo Osoro, are not being held by either the National Police Service or the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.

“It is our clients’ position that the three missing persons are not in police custody,” he said while seeking time to file responses to the habeas corpus applications.

The State also argued that the applications filed before the court did not meet the legal threshold for the orders sought.

Lawyers representing the families, led by Advocate Abner Mango, opposed the request, insisting that the country’s top police commanders had a constitutional duty to obey court orders and personally account for the fate of the missing men.

Mango argued that the Inspector General and the DCI Director head institutions with the capacity to determine the whereabouts of every Kenyan.

“The Inspector General and the DCI Director have the apparatus to know where every Kenyan is. If they say these three men are not in police custody, then they should tell this court who has them. Cases of enforced disappearances have become too many, and this is an opportunity for the security chiefs to shed light on the fate of the victims,” Mango submitted.

As Justice Muteti prepared to deliver his ruling, a woman believed to be the wife of one of the missing men stood up and broke into tears.

“Where is my husband? It is now 25 days since he disappeared. I have searched every police station in Nairobi and nobody can tell me where he is,” she cried.

Her emotional appeal sparked chants from relatives and activists who demanded justice, forcing court orderlies to intervene after one activist stripped naked in protest while others waved flags and shouted slogans inside the courtroom.

After order was restored, Justice Muteti urged the families to remain calm and allow the legal process to take its course.

“When you come to court, have faith that we are undertaking a process recognised by the law. Let us maintain decorum so that everyone leaves knowing they have been heard. When this matter comes up for hearing, both sides will be given an opportunity to present their case, and the court will render its decision,” the judge said.

He then directed Inspector General Kanja and DCI Director Amin to appear before him in person on Monday, July 20, at 1 p.m., warning that they must attend without fail.

The judge also gave the two security chiefs until Friday to file replying affidavits to the habeas corpus applications lodged by the families.

The applications were filed by Rose Sopi, the wife of Michael Oloo Osoro; Pamela Aloo, the wife of Evans Otieno Omondi; and Beatrice Wanjira, the mother of Macmillan Kiarie Mugo, together with Siasa Place.

They allege that the three men were abducted in separate incidents by armed men believed to be security officers before disappearing without trace.

According to court documents, Oloo was allegedly seized from a barbershop in Buruburu, Otieno disappeared after being picked up from a shop in Ruai, while Kiarie was allegedly bundled into a vehicle shortly after leaving his home in Githurai.

Through lawyers led by former Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo and Advocate Abner Mango, the families are asking the High Court to compel the State to produce the three men alive or dead or explain where they are being held.

The post ‘Where Is My Husband?’ Tears, Protest as Judge Summons IG Kanja, DCI Boss Over Three Missing Men appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a ruling delivered on Friday, Justice Alexander Muteti directed that Ngache be released from police custody by 5 p.m., effectively overturning an earlier order by the Milimani Law Courts that had permitted detectives to hold her for three days to complete investigations.

The judge also directed that the matter be mentioned on Monday, when the High Court is expected to issue further directions on the constitutional issues raised in the case.

Ngache, popularly known online as Princess Halima, was arrested on June 30 during what the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) described as an intelligence-led operation in Kazandani, Bamburi, Mombasa County.

Detectives from the DCI’s Serious Crimes Unit allege she is linked to the verified X account @sholard_mancity, which allegedly published detailed information about President William Ruto’s international travel, including flight routes, destinations and aircraft details during recent official trips to Europe.

According to investigators, the account published posts claiming that President Ruto travelled aboard a chartered private jet from Belgium to Norway on June 8, later flew from Norway to Finland on June 10, and on June 25 allegedly departed Kenya with plans to board another private aircraft in Madagascar.

Court documents filed by Corporal Edwin Metto state that the motive behind the publication of the information remains unknown.

“…the motive of the alleged tracking remains unknown and the information published by the said user has caused apprehension on the person of the Head of State as well as Kenyan citizens,” the investigating officer stated in an affidavit filed before court.

The DCI maintains that the alleged posts may amount to offences under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, arguing that publication of the travel movements of protected persons raises significant national security concerns.

Following her arrest, detectives recovered two mobile phones, a Dell laptop, a Tecno tablet and three flash drives, which they sought to subject to forensic examination.

Investigators initially requested seven days to complete the analysis and obtain information from other agencies before forwarding the investigation file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).

However, Senior Principal Magistrate Theresa Nyangena declined the request and instead granted detectives three days, finding that the shorter period would be sufficient to complete the remaining investigations.

One of the central issues raised during the proceedings was that the X account under investigation allegedly remained active even after Ngache had been arrested and transported from Mombasa to Nairobi.

The DCI argued that the continued activity suggested more than one individual could have been operating the account.

Ngache, however, relied on the same fact to dispute investigators’ claims that she was solely responsible for the account.

She told the court that despite all her electronic devices being seized, fresh posts continued appearing on the platform while she remained in police custody, casting doubt on allegations that she was its administrator.

That argument has become one of the major points likely to feature prominently as the constitutional challenge proceeds.

Ngache has also questioned the manner of her arrest, arguing that she was apprehended without being informed of the reasons for her arrest and without a warrant before being transferred from Mombasa to Nairobi.

The case has attracted widespread public attention because it sits at the intersection of national security and constitutional freedoms.

While investigators argue that publishing real-time or detailed information concerning the movements of a sitting Head of State could expose protected persons to security risks, digital rights advocates have increasingly questioned whether authorities are stretching cybercrime laws to criminalise online speech.

The matter also comes only days after another significant High Court decision striking down provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, which had granted authorities broad powers to block websites without court orders.

That judgment reaffirmed constitutional protections on freedom of expression and access to information, further intensifying debate over the scope of digital regulation in Kenya.

Legal experts say the outcome of Ngache’s case could shape future investigations involving open-source intelligence, social media reporting and the publication of publicly available aviation data.

Globally, flight tracking has become increasingly accessible through publicly available aviation platforms, allowing users to monitor aircraft movements using transponder signals.

Governments, however, often distinguish between publicly available aviation data and the deliberate dissemination of information involving protected state officials where security considerations arise.

In Kenya, the DCI insists its investigation is not aimed at restricting legitimate freedom of expression but at determining whether any criminal offences were committed under existing cybercrime laws.

For now, Justice Muteti’s ruling means Ngache will regain her freedom while detectives continue their investigations.

Whether prosecutors ultimately approve criminal charges, and whether the courts draw a new constitutional line between digital expression and national security, will begin to emerge when the matter returns to the High Court on Monday.

The post Court Orders Release of Woman at Centre of President Ruto Flight-Tracking Probe appeared first on Insider Bits News.