Home Blog Page 3

YOUTH CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER OF TWO PEOPLE.

By Reporter.

A 24-year-old man has been charged with two counts of attempted murder.

Nafac Mohamed Ahmed appeared before Milimani Chief Magistrate Dolpina Alego where he denied the charges leveled against him.

The first count stated that Nafac attempted to unlawfully cause the death of Olad Abdikhaliq Abdi by assaulting and occasioning grievous harm.

The charge sheet stated that he committed the offence on July 10, 2025 at Shujaa Mall Kilimani in Nairobi within Nairobi City County, jointly with others not before.

The second count stated that he attempted to unlawfully to cause the death of Ramla Said Ali by assaulting and occasioning her bodily harm.

According to the prosecution, the accused person committed the offence on July 10, at Shujaa Mall in Kilimani.

The accused person will remain in custody pending the production of his pre-bail report.

Please follow and like us:

TWO BROTHERS CHARGED WITH MONEY LAUNDERING.

By NT Correspondent .

Two brothers have been charged with falsely obtaining Sh5.6 million and purchasing high-end motor vehicles to conceal the proceeds of crime.

Joseph Wambugu Wachiuri and Samuel Karuga Wachiuri appeared before Milimani Magistrate Caroline Mugo, where they denied several charges including money laundering.

The court heard that the two committed the offence on diverse dates between 9 May and 14 May, 2025 Nairobi County.

According to the charge sheet, the two brothers committed the offence jointly with others who have already been charged, when they entered into an arrangement to conceal Sh.5,921,600, money they obtained by false pretense from Grace Njeri Irungu.

They later acquired Ford Rangers registration numbers KDL 252U and KDT 605S.

Karuga is alleged to have obtained the money from Njeri by falsely pretending that he was in a position to supply 6,000 bags of 25 kgs of rice and 250 bags of 50kgs of sugar.

It is further alleged that between 9 May 2025, the two brothers entered into an arrangement to conceal Sh2.2 million by acquiring one of the motor vehicles.

Later, between 9 May and 14 May, 2025, they used Sh.3,450,000 to purchase the second motor vehicle.

The charges further said the two knew or ought to have known that the motor vehicles were proceeds of crime.

He is further accused that he later transferred the motor vehicle to Mercy Wangari Wachiuri, an offence he allegedly committed on or about 23 May 2025.

They were released on a bond of Sh1 million 

Please follow and like us:

RUTO’S DAUGHTER CHARLENE AND PUBLISHER REACH DEAL TO END CRIMINAL CHARGES.

By Sam Alfan .

President William Ruto’s daughter Charlene Ruto has reconciled with a publisher who wrote a book on her, without seeking her consent.

Charlene and Webster Ochora Elijah recorded a consent on August 18 ,2025 bringing to an end criminal charges instituted against the writer.

The consent indicated that the matter before a Milimani court had been withdrawn, after reaching the deal.

“The Accused shall not publish, distribute, disseminate, or cause to be published in any form or medium the book or any material containing content referring to, depicting, or purporting to narrate in the first person the events forming the subject matter of this case, whether directly or indirectly identifying the Complainant,” reads the consent.

It further stated that Ochora shall not sell, license, assign, or otherwise transfer any rights in relation to the said book or its contents to any third party for purposes of publication, production, or adaptation.

“That in the event of breach of clauses 3 or 4 herein, the Complainant shall be at liberty to institute Civil proceedings to recover any damages suffered from such a Publication and this consent shall not operate as a defence to such a Civil Proceedings,” reads the consent.

The also offered an apology, which the Charlene accepted, leading to the resolution of the matter.

However, prosecutor told the court she needed time to seek direction from her superiors. 

Milimani Magistrate Robinson Ondieki directed the matter to be mentioned next month for further directions.

Please follow and like us:

EQUITY BANK SUPERVISOR CHARGED WITH STEALING.

By Reporter.

Equity Bank customer service supervisor has been charged with stealing over Sh2.4 million from employer.

Ann Wanjiru Murathe appeared before Milimani Chief Magistrate Dolpina Alego and denied the charges.

Prosecution told the court that on diverse dates between 6 April 2023 to 24 April 2023 at Equity Bank Kenya Limited, Tom Mboya Branch in Nairobi County, having been employed by the said bank as a customer service supervisor, stole Sh. 2,410,000 from Bank Kenya Limited.

She was released on a cash bail of Sh700,000 pending hearing and determination of the criminal case.

Please follow and like us:

SUPER METRO TO PAY PASSENGER HALF-A-MILLION FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED IN AN ACCIDENT.

By NT Correspondent.

Super Metro has been ordered to pay over half a million to a passenger as compensation for injuries he sustained in an accident last year.

The matatu transport company was ordered to pay Clovins Ndayikengurutse Sh6Ksh645,974 as compensation, for injuries he sustained in an accident involving a vehicle belonging to the Sacco.

Clovins sued Super Metro seeking compensation after the minibus belongs to the Sacco was involved in a collision with an oncoming vehicle.

He was aboard the said minibus when it was involved in an accident at Othoo along Awasi-Ahero road.

The passenger was rushed to a nearby hospital before being referred to Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching and Referral Hospital.

He was trated in other hospitals including Ladnan Hospital.

Clovins said he sustained injuries for which he claimed general and special damages amounting to Sh.156,474.

He suffered bruises to the forehead, knee joint, elbow joint and fracture of the left clavicle.

He produced a Police Abstract and receipts for medication.

The company had challenged the award but it was dismissed by the High Court.

Please follow and like us:

COURT DIRECTS PROSECUTION TO SUPPLY WOMAN IN CYBER BULLYING CASE WITH EVIDEY.

By NT Correspondent .

A Nairobi Court has ordered prosecution to supply a woman facing charges of publishing false information and cyber bullying with forensic complete forensic images and cloud service provider data.

Milimani Principal Magistrate Caroline Mugo ordered prosecution to supply Magdalene Nichanze Barua the evidence within 7 days.

Magistrate Mugo said the prosecution is duty bound to supply the defence with the forensic images and cloud service provider data.

And having found the charges cannot be withdrawn under section 232 of the criminal procedure code, she said the court must to ensure the accused person’s right to a fair trial is not compromised.

“In my view, the only fair compromise would be to direct the prosecution to supply the defence with the forensic images and cloud service provider data within 7 days of this ruling failure to which the prosecution will be barred from relying on the forensic report supplied to the defence,” ruled the Magistrate.

The accused person through lawyer Cecil Miller applied to be supplied with the forensic images of the Dell laptop, Samsung mobile phone, Apple I phone and USB devices which are subject to the forensic report.

According to the defence, they required those imaging to enable them facilitate and independent forensic analysis so as to challenge the prosecution’s evidence.
Barua is accused of publishing false information and cyber harassment, an offence she allegedly committed on November 21, 2023.

She is further accused of impersonating Robert Cullens Murimi by using his email address to send fraudulent school fees claims to various recipients including international organisations and local schools.

Barua is out on a cash bail of Sh50,000.

Please follow and like us:

LOSS FOR DPP AS COURT REVERSES BID TO WITHDRAW SH300 MILLION LAND FRAUD CASE.

By Sam Alfan.

The High Court has reversed a decision to drop a Sh300 million fraud case against a Nairobi businessman.

High Court Judge Alexander Muteti overturned the decision by trial Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo, allowing the application by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga, withdrawing the case against businessman Abdirahman Abdi Abdi.

While reversing the decision, Justice Muteti faulted the trial court for completely ignoring the plight of the victim. The judge said the DPP exercised his discretion under section 87(a) improper, irregular and incorrect in law.

“The ruling by the trial Magistrate allowing the withdrawal of the case against the accused person under section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code is therefore set aside,” ordered the judge while setting aside lower court decision allowing prosecution to withdraw the case.

The judge directed the case to be remitted to the Chief Magistrate for allocation to another court, to hear the matter.

Justice Muteti further ruled that the case shall be held in abeyance by the Magistrate as the applicant (Pansiba Limited engages the Director of Public Prosecutions on the decision to withdraw as was prayed before Milimani Principal Magistrate Onsarigo.

“For the avoidance of doubt, the effect of this Ruling is that this matter shall be held in abeyance by the Magistrate as the applicant engages the Director of Public Prosecutions on the decision to withdraw as was prayed before Principal Magistrate Onsarigo and so that the matter is not kept in abeyance ad infinito the applicants counsel shall within 7 days from the date hereof write to the DPP in line with their request on 30 July 2025 before Magistrate Onsarigo and the DPP shall exercise his power under Article 157(10) upon review of the victims concerns and render a decision thereon which shall then be communicated to the trial Court on 27 October 2025,” ordered Judge Muteti.

The Judge directed the trial court shall thereafter proceed with the matter as it shall deem appropriate after parties revert with their respective positions then.

He said the bail terms granted by the lower court to Abdirahman Abdi Abdi shall remain in force until the matter is heard and determined.

Pansiba ltd through lawyer Ben Musundi approached the High Court seeking to review the decision to withdraw the criminal case against the accused.

The company through lawyer Musundi had vehemently opposed the withdrawal of the case arguing that the trial court disregarded the submissions of the company in opposing the decision.

The High Court agreed with the lawyer Musundi’s argument adding that law on the rights of victims is clear that courts should not only concern themselves with the rights of the accused but also should remember that victims have a legitimate expectation of a fair process.

“The reason given for the withdrawal of the criminal case by the DPP of there being a pending civil case is untenable in law in light of the provisions of Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure code and that the Land and Environment Court has no jurisdiction to deal with criminal cases thus it cannot be said that the matter would be dealt with by that court,” ruled Justice Muteti.

Lawyer Musundi submitted that the company said it provided sufficient justification in opposing the application to withdraw the criminal charges and therefore established a proper basis for the case to proceed to its logical conclusion.

The court heard that the preferred charges against Abdirahman was done following an independent review of the police investigations file, and the DPP found that there were sufficient evidence to sustain the trial.

Please follow and like us:

COURT LIFTS INJUNCTION SOUGHT BY AESTHETIC AFRICA IN HYDRAFACIAL DISTRIBUTION DISPUTE.

By Sam Alfan.

Aesthetic Africa Limited has failed in its bid to block rival companies from distributing HydraFacial LLC products after the High Court vacated earlier orders that had temporarily barred the companies from doing so.

Justice Josephine Mongare dismissed Aesthetic Africa’s application seeking to restrain Dawa Life Sciences Limited and Skintech Pharma Limited from acting as the new distributors of HydraFacial LLC, using Aesthetic Africa’s client data, contacting its clients, or entering into any new distribution agreements.

In her ruling, Justice Mongare held that Aesthetic Africa had not established a prima facie case against Dawa Life Sciences or Skintech Pharma. She further noted that any loss the company might suffer is quantifiable and could be compensated through damages.

“I also agree that the balance of convenience weighs against granting the injunction,” the judge ruled.

“Skintech, as the appointed distributor, has demonstrated that it has already incurred significant costs, including placing a $29,290 order, hiring staff—as evidenced by pay slips—and is indeed suffering business disruption due to the interim orders previously issued by the court.”

The dispute arose after Aesthetic Africa filed an application seeking interim injunctions to stop Dawa Life Sciences and Skintech Pharma from acting as HydraFacial’s new distributors, using its client data, or entering into any new agreements pending the hearing and determination of the case.

Aesthetic Africa claimed that it had heavily invested in building the HydraFacial brand in Kenya through training, opening clinics, securing regulatory approvals, marketing, and hosting events. However, on January 23, 2025, HydraFacial, through its legal representatives, issued a 60-day notice terminating the agreement without offering any reasons.

The court heard that just 18 days later, on February 10, 2025—before the notice period had expired—HydraFacial appointed Skintech as its new distributor and allegedly began sharing Aesthetic Africa’s proprietary client data with the new entity.

Aesthetic Africa alleged that Sachi Mohindra, who had previously proposed a partnership in 2023 (which was rejected), orchestrated the move by maligning Aesthetic Africa to HydraFacial, ultimately securing the distributorship for herself and Skintech.l

The company further claimed that the two rival firms are unqualified, conducting unauthorized medical training without regulatory oversight, and putting public health at risk with unregulated procedures. Aesthetic Africa warned that, without injunctive relief, it would suffer significant financial loss, reputational damage, and that its clients would be exposed to potential harm.

In response, Dawa Life Sciences Managing Director Dr. Ajaykumar Shanabhal Patel emphasized that Dawa is a separate legal entity from Skintech and has no contractual relationship with either Aesthetic Africa or HydraFacial. He maintained that Dawa has never entered into any agreement to distribute HydraFacial products and argued that the orders sought were misplaced and did not affect its operations.

Skintech Pharma, through its director Reema Shah, pointed out a key technical flaw in Aesthetic Africa’s suit—specifically, that it was unclear whether the second defendant was meant to be Sachi Mohindra or Skintech, given they are distinct legal entities.

Skintech also told the court that Aesthetic Africa’s distribution agreement with HydraFacial was non-exclusive, contradicting the company’s claim that it held exclusive rights. This, they argued, amounted to material non-disclosure when Aesthetic Africa initially obtained the ex parte orders.

Skintech asserted that the termination of Aesthetic Africa’s distributorship was done via written notice, as per the terms of the contract. The company confirmed that it has since signed a valid Sales and Distribution Agreement with HydraFacial appointing it as the official distributor for East Africa.

The company further submitted that any financial loss suffered by Aesthetic Africa could be adequately addressed through damages. It emphasized that the interim orders had already caused business disruption and financial strain due to placed orders, hired staff, and halted operations.

Please follow and like us:

KENYAN FIRM LOSES BID TO QUESTION FORMER MICROSOFT EAST AFRICA LTD COUNTRY MANAGER IN BOTCHED DEAL.

By Sam Alfan.

The High Court has rejected an application by Technoservice limited to cross-examining former country manager of Microsoft East Africa limited.

Justice Peter Mulwa dismissed application by TechnoService ltd seeking to cross-examine former Microsoft East Africa limited Country Manager Kendi Nderitu over an affidavit she swore regarding transactions between Nokia Corporation and Microsoft Mobile regarding the transfer of the Frame Repair Services Agreement.

“I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the cross-examination sought. I find that the application lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed,” ruled the judge while dismissing the application.

Judge Mulwa said that the alleged discrepancies in the dates of commissioning of the affidavit and annexures, while irregular, they do not amount to perjury.

The judge said the court must remain guided by the overriding objective of facilitating the just, proportionate and expeditious disposal of proceedings.

TechnoService ltd sought to cross-examine Nderitu on the basis that an affidavit filed in court contained inconsistent, incoherent and conflicting depositions in several paragraphs coupled with allegations of perjury, fabrication, and forgery of documents.

In a supporting affidavit, the company director Bulent Gulbahar said case dated 21st October 2021 and the supporting affidavit sworn on 19th October 2021 contained several inconsistent, incoherent and false statements necessitating the cross-examination of Nderitu, the deponent.

It is contended that the depositions in several paragraphs are internally contradictory or based on matters outside her personal knowledge.

In particular, while Nderitu claimed authority to swear on behalf of the Microsoft East Africa ltd and supports a Chamber Summons referring the matter to arbitration, she simultaneously denies Microsoft East Africa’s involvement with the Technoservice ltd.

She is also alleged to have asserted that the agreements were transferred to the Microsoft Mobile, and alleges that the Microsoft East Africa ltd was improperly joined in the proceedings.

Technoservice ltd told the court these positions are inconsistent and mutually destructive.

The company argued Ms. Nderitu was neither an employee nor officer of Microsoft East Africa ltd, Microsoft Mobile, nor Nokia at the material time, thus casting doubt on the veracity of her statements on corporate arrangements, transfer of business, and arbitration proceedings.

The company further alleged that the averments in three paragraphs amounts to perjury in relation to the Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement, assumption of liabilities, and termination of arbitration.

Microsoft East Africa ltd opposed the application through the company Principal Corporate Counsel Otilia Phiri arguing that Ms. Kendi Nderitu swore the affidavit in her capacity as the former Country Manager of the company, although she has since left its employment.

It was contended that the application for cross-examination does not meet the legal threshold as it fails to demonstrate fraud, mala fides, or bad motive.
Lawyer Phiri maintained that the depositions made by Ms. Nderitu were based on her personal knowledge and belief, consistent with Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.

The firm said she relied on information from other sources or documents, she explicitly disclosed the basis of such information.

He further averred that although Ms. Nderitu was not personally involved in the transactions between Nokia Corporation and Microsoft Mobile regarding the transfer of the Frame Repair Services Agreement, she was, by virtue of her position as Country Manager, privy to the operations and dealings of other Microsoft entities.

Microsoft East Africa ltd, being an affiliate of the Microsoft Group, operates various businesses within the region, and her knowledge of such matters cannot be dismissed as hearsay.

Lawyer Phiri added that the sale of Nokia’s business to the Microsoft Mobile was widely publicized in the mainstream media and remains accessible to the public, thereby rendering Ms. Nderitu’s depositions a matter of public knowledge rather than fabrication.

According to Kendi Nderitu affidavit, Microsoft East Africa ltd has never had any involvement with the Technoservice and the company has therefore been wrongly joined in these proceedings.

She further stated that t was evident from the reading of the claim that the dispute relates to various contractual agreements entered into between the Plaintiff and Nokia Corporation including its affiliates.

“I am aware that Microsoft Mobile Oy was subsequently
founded by the Microsoft group for the specific purpose of purchasing and operating Nokia’s former devices & services business essentially Nokia’s mobile phones division.Consequently, the agreements between the Technoservice ltd and Nokia Corporation were transferred to the Microsoft Mobile OY,” she stated on the affidavit.

Kendi Nderitu further stated that from a reading of the two Agreements, it was evident that whereas the Agreements were between Technoservice ltd and Nokia Corporation and its affiliates, Technoservice ltd has sought to introduce new parties that have not had any dealings with Technoservice ltd such asMicrosoft East Africa ltd.

She also stated that was clear from a reading of the Amended Plaint that the dispute arises substantially from the said Agreements and one of the issues raised by the Plaintiff at paragraphs 30 to 33 is whether Nokia Corporation could transfer or assign the rights and obligations relating to the said Agreements to Microsoft Mobile Oy.

“In the premises and notwithstanding the addition of accessory parties to the dispute such as Microsoft East Africa ltd , it can easily be gleaned from the pleadings that the substance of the dispute arises from or is in connection with the two Agreements,” said Kendi Nderitu in the affidavit.

She further said that the introduction of parties who were never involved with the two Agreements is merely intended to cloud the dispute and cause confusion in the matter.

“I am aware that on 25th April 2014. Microsoft Mobile Oy. the 2nd Defendant herein, took over Nokia Corporation’s Devices & Services business pursuant to a Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement (SAPA) dated 2nd September 2013. Under the SAPA and related documentation, the 2nd Defendant received certain equity interests and assets and assumed all liabilities relating to the Nokia Devices & Services business as detailed in the SAPA,” she added in the affidavit.

Please follow and like us:

KIRINYAGA COUNTY ORDERED TO PAY WIDOWER SH3.5 MILLION.

By Sam Alfan.

Kirinyaga County Government has been ordered to pay Sh3.5 million as special damages to the man whose wife was ran over by a county grader killing her on the spot.

Judge Edward Muriithi allowed application by Paul Gichangi seeking to compel the county’s finance executive Jacqueline Njogu and the Chief Officer, Finance Charles Calirus Otieno to pay the money as directed by a Baricho court.

The trial court had ordered the county to pay Sh2,715,422 together with costs and interest amount to Sh3.5 million.

The judge said that execution proceedings against a government or public authority can only be made against the accounting officer or chief officer, who is under a statutory duty to satisfy such a judgment.

The judge added that Gichangi had a legitimate expectation that the two county officials would settle the claim but that they had failed to do so, without any explanation or justification.

“Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Court finds merit in the application dated 15 August 2024 for judicial review order of Mandamus, and it is granted as prayed,” ordered Judge Muriithi.

Gichangi told the court that Baricho law courts entered judgment in his favour after he filed application seeking for general and special damages arising from the death of my wife Rose Wamuyu Muriithi.

The woman was ran over by a county grader registration No. GKA 745M on 17 March 2017.

The widower said the judgment had accrued interest at court rate of 14 percent since 10 February 2023 amounting to Sh. 570, 237, bringing the total sum due and payable to Sh. 3,504,274.

He told the court the sum remains due and payable as the county has failed to pay hence writ of mandamus should issue.

Court heard that his lawyer wrote to the county Government CEC and Chief Financial officer demanding payment of the decretal amount but they declined to pay and was issued with a decree and Certificate of Execution against the Government to proceed with execution.

Please follow and like us: