The Court of Appeal has temporarily stopped the prosecution of prominent lawyer Guy Spencer Elms in a Sh100 million Karen land dispute linked to a contested will of a British billionaire.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Patrick Omwenga Kiage, Jamila Mohammed, and Linnet Ndolo issued the order directing that the status quo be maintained, effectively freezing all criminal proceedings against Spencer at the Milimani Magistrates’ Court, pending the hearing and final determination of his appeal.
“Pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, the status quo shall be maintained, meaning that there shall be no taking of plea or other proceedings at the Magistrates Court, pending the hearing,” the judges ordered
The appellate intervention comes after months of legal tug-of-war between Lawyer Spencer and businesswoman and politician Agnes Kagure Kariuki over two prime parcels of land LR No. 2327/10 and LR No. 2327/117 located in the upmarket Karen suburb of Nairobi.
At the centre of the dispute is the will of British billionaire Roger Bryan Robson, who died in 2012.
Prosecutors claim the lawyer forged the will and attempted to fraudulently acquire the properties.
Spencer, who describes himself as the legal custodian of Robson’s will, claims the document directed that the Karen land be sold to support needy children and environmental conservation causes.
Kagure, on the other hand, insists she lawfully purchased the same land from Robson in 2011 for Sh100 million, a year before his death.
After raising concerns about the authenticity of the signature in the will, Lawyer Spencer was arrested and arraigned in court to face multiple charges of forgery, uttering false documents, and attempting to fraudulently acquire property.
Weeks later, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga sought to withdraw the forgery charges against Spencer on two separate occasions at the Magistrates’ Court, and was rebuffed both times by Milimani Magistrate Benmark Ekhubi.
Magistrate Ekhubi found it irregular that the DPP sought to withdraw charges it had approved less than a year before, and critically, without informing the complainant, Kagure.
The DPP then moved to the High Court seeking to overturn Magistrate Ekhubi’s decision to block his bid to drop the charges against the city lawyer.
On January 27, 2026, Justice Martin Muya dismissed that bid and reinstated the prosecution of Lawyer Spencer.
In his ruling, Justice Muya found that the trial magistrate had acted within his discretion to reject the DPP’s attempts to withdraw the case against the lawyer.
“I therefore find no good reason to interfere with the decision of the learned trial magistrate to disallow the application for withdrawal of the charges. The stay orders granted to the applicant are hereby vacated as the appeal had no merit,” Justice Muya declared.
Justice Muya was particularly critical of how the prosecution had handled Kagure.
He noted that despite the DPP anchoring its High Court application on a finding by Justice Hillary Chemitei that the will was valid, Kagure, the complainant, was never informed of the move to drop her case.
“This therefore smacks of a deliberate attempt to sideline the exparte applicant in the important decision of withdrawing charges relating to a dispute concerning matter of land ownership,” the judge said.
Notably, Justice Muya observed that Justice Chemitei’s ruling in the Family Court, which the DPP had cited as validating the will, did not in fact make a definitive finding on whether forgery had occurred.
“The judge did not make a clear finding as to whether there was forgery or not and left the matter to the other courts with the necessary jurisdiction to decide,” Justice Muya noted.
Lawyer Spenser, represented by Senior Counsel Nelson Havi appearing, moved swiftly to the Court of Appeal.
The bench noted that all parties, including Mr Victor Owiti, the Principal Prosecution Counsel for the DPP, and Mr. Kiraithe Wandugi for Kagure, agreed that the substantive appeal should proceed directly rather than arguing the motion for stay separately.
The appellate judges further directed that the appeal be treated as urgent and processed on a priority basis.
“The appeal be and is hereby marked as urgent and shall be processed for hearing on expedited basis, if not within the current Court term, immediately at the beginning of the next Court term,” the court ordered.
According to the court directions, Spencer has been given 14 days to serve the record of appeal together with written submissions and bundles of authorities upon the respondents.
The respondents, including the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Kagure, will then have 14 days after service to file and serve their responses, while the appellant may file supplementary submissions within seven days.
When the matter was called before Milimani Principal Magistrate Carolyne Nyaguthii Mugo for plea taking, Spencer’s counsel informed the court that the appellate court has since suspended the criminal proceedings.
The defence requested adequate time for the higher court to conclude proceedings.
“Your Honour, the records are still being compiled, and it will take time for the hearing to proceed and a judgement to be given. The Court of Appeal usually takes about 90 days for a judgement, so we are suggesting that this matter can be mentioned in September,” Spencer’ counsel submitted.
The prosecution raised no objection to the timeline, confirming the defence had served the court with the Court of Appeal order.
Magistrate Mugo accordingly directed that the matter be mentioned on September 30, 2026 to update on the Court of Appeal outcome.
