Home Blog

THEY ARE GUILTY OF MURDER,DPP URGES COURT TO JAIL OBADO, HIS PA AND ANOTHER OVER SHARON’S MURDER.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
THEY ARE GUILTY OF MURDER,DPP URGES COURT TO JAIL OBADO, HIS PA AND ANOTHER OVER SHARON’S MURDER.

By Sam Alfan.

The Director of Public Prosecution Renson Ingonga has urged the High Court to convict former Migori governor Okoth Obado and his co-accused over the killing of Sharon Otieno and her unborn baby.

The murder of university student Sharon Otieno was not a spontaneous act but a coordinated operation involving planning, execution, and an alleged cover-up, prosecutors told the High Court, naming former Migori Governor Okoth Obado as the ultimate beneficiary of the crime.

In closing submissions, the Director of Public Prosecutions argued that mobile phone data, cybercrime analysis, forensic findings, and witness testimony collectively place Obado, his former personal assistant Michael Oyamo, and Caspal Obiero at the centre of a common criminal design that led to Sharon’s abduction and killing in September 2018.

The prosecution said the case consists of different pieces of the puzzles that once analyzed will paint a picture of what happened on the fateful night and the events that led up to Sharon’s death.

“We have taken this court through witness testimony. Cybercrime report, phone analysis and forensic investigations to prove that the accused persons were responsible for the senseless death of Sharon,” court heard.

Prosecutors told the court that Oyamo and Obiero acted as trusted operatives, facilitating movements and executing instructions that advanced the shared objective of silencing the deceased and neutralising a key witness identified as XYZ. The two were said to have been present near or at Graca Hotel on the evening Sharon and XYZ were abducted.

The court heard that the vehicle used in the abduction and subsequent killing was driven by a long-time operator of motor vehicle KCL 481K, owned by the wife of one of the accused. Prosecutors further alleged that the accused procured falsified medical records in an attempt to mislead investigators and conceal their involvement after the crime.

According to the prosecution, the evidence shows a clear chain of coordination, including planning, facilitation of movement, and post-offence concealment, with Obado positioned as the beneficiary of the actions carried out by his co-accused.

The DPP dismissed the defence case as inconsistent and uncorroborated, arguing that it failed to challenge the core findings of the investigations or raise reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors maintained that the defence narratives were contradicted by independent witnesses and objective digital and forensic evidence.

“NOT EVEN 50% OF EVIDENCE LINKS ME TO SHARON’S MURDER”-EX-GOVERNOR OBADO TELLS COURT

The prosecution also defended the integrity of the investigations, telling the court that the case was built using multiple independent sources, including communication data, financial and documentary records, medical and police reports, and forensic linkages.

“The evidence is internally consistent and externally corroborated on all material aspects,” the prosecution submitted, urging the court to convict all three accused persons for the murder of Sharon Otieno.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

SONKO WANTS LAWYER, SENIOR OFFICER TO TESTIFY IN HIS GRAFT CASE.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
SONKO WANTS LAWYER, SENIOR OFFICER TO TESTIFY IN HIS GRAFT CASE.

By NT Correspondent.

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko wants an advocate and a senior police officer summoned to testify in his Sh20 million graft case.

In an application, Sonko sought to compel lawyer Steve Ogola and the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) at Capitol Hill Police Station, Tusca Opondo, to appear and produce documents he says are central to his case.

Through his advocate Asa Nyakundi, Sonko told the court that the proposed witnesses would help explain how the case against him was developed, particularly the preparation of charge sheets and cooperation documents during investigations.

Nyakundi submitted that Ogola was in possession of three key documents including two charge sheets, an affidavit of cooperation and a statement allegedly made by him.

According to the defence, one charge sheet was prepared before the complainant was included as a co-accused, while another was issued after the complainant was removed from the case.

Nyakundi argued that the sequence raises issues that should be examined in open court.The defence further urged the court to compel the OCS at Capitol Hill Police Station to produce records and evidence linked to statements recorded from Sonko during investigations.

“This evidence goes to the core of the first accused person’s defence and will assist the court to arrive at a fair and just determination,” Nyakundi said, adding that summoning the witnesses would not prejudice the prosecution.

The prosecution did not oppose the application but noted that it had not been supplied with a statement from Ogola.

The prosecution asked the court to direct that the statement be furnished to it before the witness is called to testify.

Sonko and his co-accused, businessman Erastus Ombok, were placed on their defence in February 2025 after the court ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against them.

They are facing charges of abuse of office, conflict of interest, money laundering and acquisition of proceeds of crime, arising from the alleged extortion of Sh20 million.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

MAN DENIES FALSELY OBTAINING SH1.6 MILLION FROM NIS JOB SEEKERS.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
MAN DENIES FALSELY OBTAINING SH1.6 MILLION FROM NIS JOB SEEKERS.

By NT Correspondent.

A fake National Intelligence Services (NIS) officer has been charged with defrauding jobseekers of over Sh1.6 million by claiming to be in a position to secure a job for them.

Erick Kimutai Cheruiyot was presented before Milimani Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina where he denied the charges.

The charge sheet stated that he committed the offences on diverse dates between August 23 and September 15, 2024, jointly with another not before court, with intent to defraud.

The first count stated that he obtained Sh827,500 from Michael Kipkoech by falsely pretending that he was in a position to secure employment for his son with the NIS.

He was further accused of obtained Sh807,000 from Wesley Mutai by falsely pretending that he was in a position to secure employment for his daughter with the state agency.

It is alleged that he committed the offence on diverse dates between the August 27 and September 10, 2024, at unknown place.

The court directed him to deposit bond of Sh300,000 or alternative cash bail of Sh.500,000, to secure his release.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

SAFARICOM CUSTOMER OPPOSES CA AND CBK BID TO STRIKE OUT HER M-PESA FRAUD CASE.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
SAFARICOM CUSTOMER OPPOSES CA AND CBK BID TO STRIKE OUT HER M-PESA FRAUD CASE.

By Sam Alfan.

A customer who claims to be a victim of M-Pesa fraud has sued Safaricom PLC and M-Pesa Holding Company Ltd for allegedly failing to prevent fraudulent transactions and protect customer data.

Opposing preliminary objection filed by the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and the Communications Authority (CA) seeking to have the case struck out, Paula Rogo urged the court to allow the case proceed to trial.

Rogo told the court that the two institutions were properly included in the case due to their alleged failure to discharge their statutory duties under the National Payment System Act, Cap. 491A.

Rogo said CBK has the mandate to regulate, license and supervise authorised payment service providers, noting that the banking regulator approved and licensed Safaricom PLC as a payment service provider.

She submitted that although CBK is not named as a defendant, it has an identifiable stake in the proceedings and was therefore properly enjoined as an interested party.

“In any event, the banking regulator has not demonstrated to the court what prejudice, if any, it stands to suffer by remaining an interested party in this suit,” Rogo argued.

She told the court that CBK’s participation was essential to the proper adjudication of the issues before the court and the enforcement of any decree that may be issued, given its statutory mandate.

SAFARICOM, M-PESA SUED OVER FAILURE TO PREVENT MOBILE MONEY FRAUD.

Rogo said the suit concerns, among other issues, an alleged breach of Safaricom’s duties under the National Payment System Act.

“It is not in dispute that CBK has the sole mandate of regulating, licensing and supervising authorised dealers of payment services, as well as establishing, regulating and supervising efficient and effective payment, clearing and settlement systems,” the court heard.

She cited Section 17 of the National Payment System Act, which outlines the powers and functions of the Central Bank, including its role in formulating and implementing policies that promote efficient and effective payment systems.

Rogo further relied on Rule 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, which defines an interested party as a person or entity with an identifiable stake or legal interest in proceedings, despite not being a direct litigant.

“Given CBK’s statutory supervisory mandate, it has a duty to assist this Honourable Court to fully, effectively and adequately adjudicate all matters in dispute,” she submitted.

Rogo added that CBK’s involvement becomes even more critical when considering the reliefs sought in the suit.

Among the orders sought are directives, in the public interest and in advancement of consumer protection rights, requiring the defendants to implement adequate systems within 180 days to prevent or reduce M-Pesa fraud.

She also wants the establishment of a dedicated fraud reporting lines and response teams plus a compensate victims based on transparent and timely criteria.

Rogo further wants the court to order investigations and pursue perpetrators while keeping victims informed of progress.

She told the court that should judgment be entered in her favour, CBK would be required to exercise its supervisory powers over Safaricom PLC and M-Pesa Holding Company to ensure compliance with the court’s decree.

While acknowledging that she has not sought any specific relief against CBK, Rogo maintained that the regulator, as the sole supervisor of national payment service providers, ought to offer guidance and support to the court in determining the matter.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

TYCOON WANTS TO ESCALATE FIGHT OVER KWALE LAND TO THE APEX COURT.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
TYCOON WANTS TO ESCALATE FIGHT OVER KWALE LAND TO THE APEX COURT.

By Sam Alfan.

Businessman Richard Kimani Rugendo wants to be allowed to escalate a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land in Kwale, to the Supreme Court.

In an application to the Court of Appeal, Rugendo said he was dissatisfied with a decision of the court delivered in December 2025, directing fresh hearing of the matter, which has been in court since 2009.

Tye businessman signalled his intention to challenge the entire decision by Justices Francis Tuiyott, Lydia Achode and Agrey Muchelule who ordered the fresh hearing.

“Take Notice that Richard Kimani, the 1st Respondent herein, being dissatisfied with the Judgement delivered on 11 December 2025 by this Honourable Court (Tuiyott, Achode & Muchelule, JAA.), intends to appeal to the Supreme Court against the entire Judgement,” Kimani informed the appellate court.

Through lawyer Philip Nyachoti, Kimani said that despite acknowledging that the matter has been in court for years, still referred the matter back for hearing before the Environment and Land court.

He said that in so doing, the court preferred the most drastic procedural remedy, a full retrial, without interrogating whether less intrusive alternatives could. adequately vindicate procedural concerns while preserving judicial economy and finality.

“If left unclarified, the reasoning in the judgment risks normalising retrial as a default remedy for procedural irregularities, even where no party is at fault and no demonstrable prejudice has been established,” he said.

Nyachoti said the decision carries significant implications for litigants, witnesses, judicial resources, and public confidence in the finality of court processes particularly in land and other complex civil disputes that often span many years,” Kimani through lawyer Nyachoti told the appellate court.

The tycoon wants the court to certify the matter as of great public importance

He also wants the apex court to determine whether, in long-running litigation, an appellate court may order a full retrial of a decades-old matter notwithstanding the disputed fact that the trial was properly completed and the Judge who heard the evidence remains available, and whether such an order accords with the principles of proportionality, judicial economy and efficiency, and the right to expeditious disposal of disputes.

“The issues arising from the decision of this court dated 11 December 2025 raise substantial and unsettled points of law, the determination of which transcends the circumstances of the parties herein and will have a direct and far-reaching impact on the application of Order 18 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the principles governing procedural regularity, proportionality, and judicial economy particularly in the disposition of long-running and part-heard matters,” lawyer Nyachoti said in the application.

The tycoon reckoned that after the trial before Justice Charles Yano, parties were directed to file their respective written submissions.

However, the Judge was transferred before the filing of written submissions and parties then appeared before Justice Lucas Naikuni who had replaced Justice Yano in the station.

“At the first mention, parties confirmed that they had not fully complied with the filing of written submissions and as such, the Judge gave parties more time to comply with the same. Further, the Judge confirmed that Judgement will be written by him and all the parties were in agreement,” court heard.

In his submissions, Kimani’s title was first in place compared to Hashim Got’s title which in evey event is a forgery.

Kimani said his title was not challenged at all by the Defendants and as such its authenticity and validity is not questionable at all.

Kimani’s Green Card was equally not challenged or controverted and the same therefore stands.

He said the testimony of the Land Chief Registrar, who is the castodian of titles to land was categorical that Kimani is the lawful owner of the stat property.

The documents Kimani and the land Chief Registrar tabled were equally not challenged and were admitted as evidence without any objection and therefore confirm that he is the true owner of the suit property

The court heard that Sheila Loveridge , Swaleh Mwakuriwa, Hamisi Mwamjita, Hashim Got and Dr. Kawaljeet Rekhi did not dislodge Kimani’s evidence.

Kimani said he purchased the property and was issued with a Certificate of Title on 6th December 1978.

The Green Card was opened on 15 November 1974 and there was no other entry in the title and according to the land registry at Kwale.

According to the record at the land registry the Green Card produced by the defendants does not exist in the records and according to hun huis tous a case of double registration.

“The title to the suit property was issued to the Plaintiff in 1978 and the 2nd title was issued on 15th August 2003 with Serial No. 55384 and in the circumstances the earlier Titie takes precedence as it is backed by adjudication records,” lawyer Nyachoti said in court filings.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

BLOW TO LAWYER SPENCER AS JUDGE REJECT DPP’S BID TO DROP CHARGES.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
BLOW TO LAWYER SPENCER AS JUDGE REJECT DPP’S BID TO DROP CHARGES.

By Sam Alfan.

The trial of lawyer Guy Elms Spencer will now proceed to hearing after the High Court rejected an appeal by Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga to drop the charges.

The DPP had moved to the High Court in a bid to block forgery charges against the Briton.

Plans to drop the charges had been dismissed by senior principal magistrate Benmark Ekhubi last year, forcing the DPP to appeal against the decision.

High Court judge Martin Muya dismissed the DPP’s application saying the trial magistrate cannot be faulted in the manner in which he interpreted the provision of section 193A of the criminal procedure code.

“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,” ruled Justice Muya.

The judge further vacated orders granted to the DPP to suspend proceedings before the trial court pending appeal as he the appeal has no merit.

Judge Muya ordered the original file to be placed before the Chief Magistrate in February 2026 for directions.

Spencer has been charged with forging the Will of Roger Bryan Robson, who died on August 8, 2012.

The court noted that there had been other attempts to withdraw the charges and in both instances the complainant was not informed before the decision was made.

“This therefore, smacks of a deliberate attempt to sideline the exparte applicant in the important decision of withdrawing charges relating to a dispute concerning matters of land ownership,” Justice Muya said.

The judge further noted that the enactment of the Victims Protection Act elevates the rights of a victim to nearly the same level as those of an accused person, which are constituted in the article 50 of the constitution.

“Section 20(1) (a) of the Act gives the victims the right to give information to police or prosecution on decisions whether or not to lay a charge or to appeal or withdraw. In this instant case the rights of the victim were not put into consideration asrequired while withdrawing the case,” ruled the judge.

In the appeal, the DPP faulted the trial court’s decision as incorrect, improper and illegal in the circumstances as the prosecution provided a proper justification for its application for withdrawal of criminal case.

“This Court be pleased to raise the impugned ruling and substitute the same with an order allowing the DPP application for withdrawal of the subject criminal case against the respondent as was sought before the trial magistrate,” urged DPP.

Magistrate Ekhubi had rejected the application to withdraw the case and directed Spencer to answer to the charges leveled against him.

The trial court noted that it was the second time the DPP had sought to withdraw or discontinue the charges against the lawyer.

“To avoid this awkward situation where the DPP speaks from both sides of the mouth; Now we have a case now we don’t or where the office is indicted of arbitrarily, unexplained, capricious and whimsically withdrawing charges against accused persons, there ought to be systems for consultation with the investigation officer’s and the victim before arriving at that decision and also in tandem with “Guidelines of Decision to Charge 2019,” said the magistrate.

The court said the case will proceed having established that the victim or complainant was not consulted and pertinently that the civil/succession proceedings does not bar the continuity of the case.

The magistrate said that it is axiomatic therefore, that the existence of a civil matter does not impede or bar criminal investigation or proceedings.

“The distinctiveness in the instant matter is that the High Court has rendered a decision on the validity of the Will. In spite of that, equally notable is the very fact that the appellate process in the Succession Cause has not been exhausted and therefore, the determination of the High Court on the validity of the Will is not incontestable,” said Magistrate Ekhubi in the decision.

While opposing the DPP application to withdraw the charges against lawyer Spencer, the complainant Agnes Kagure through his lawyer Wandugi Kiraithe told the court that she was not consulted before the application was instituted.
Lawyer Wandugi told the court that DPP’s decision was an abuse of his powers.

“We are opposing the withdrawal of this matter. You are now on the grounds that the action by the OPP is in bad faith. It is in blatant disregard of the public interest,” lawyer Wandugi submitted.

The DPP made an application to withdraw the criminal case against the Briton, saying that the validity of the Will, which forms the basis of the case, had been sanctioned by the High Court.

But Kagure submitted that the DPP’s about-turn was an abuse of the authority and completely against the public interest.

Wandugi said the prosecution was loudly silent and was avoiding to tell to tell the magistrate that there was a case between the same parties on the same subject, before a city court and which was withdrawn while she was testifying.

“So, it appears you that there are individuals who are not prone to our legal processes. They are sacred cows that the ODPP is hell-bent to protect in whichever way,” lawyer Wandugi told the court.

The lawyer said the DPP was taking the same route in an attempt to withdraw the charges against Spencer.

“Your honor, they are telling you that the ODPP is exercising his powers properly and in good faith. And why? Primarily because there was a succession case. It is true you know there was a succession case but it is trite law that a civil matter and a criminal matter can be heard concurrently,” submitted lawyer Wandugi.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

LAWYER KINYANJUI URGES CJ KOOME TO FULLY REOPEN COURTS.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
LAWYER KINYANJUI URGES CJ KOOME TO FULLY REOPEN COURTS.

By NT Correspondent.

City lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui has called on Chief Justice Martha Koome to fully reopen courthouses across the country, saying the mandatory use of e-filing and virtual platforms has left courts “partially closed” and locked out ordinary Kenyans.

Kinyanjui said the exclusive use electronic system for accessing justice violates the Constitution and denies ordinary citizens their right to justice.

In the lawyer’s view, digital platforms cannot replace constitutionally established courts that are open to the public without the inhibitions common in the online systems.

Lawyer Kinyanjui has consistently said open court are meant to serve every citizen and virtual courts are expensive to mwanaanchi as many cannot afford smartphone and data to access court.

Speaking in a public forum on access to justice, Kinyanjui said Article 50(2)(d) of the Constitution demands an open court established under the Constitution and accessible to the public.

He said online courts violate the constitutional demand.

“Phones, laptops, and tablets are not courts. Technology has its place, but it cannot be used to take away constitutionally entrenched rights for those who want to physically conduct their cases and assess the demeanor of witnesses,” said lawyer Kinyanjui.

“Judiciary’s insistence on exclusive e-filing and virtual proceedings breaches Articles 48 and 50(2)(d) of the Constitution, which guarantee access to justice and the right to a fair hearing. Forcing litigants onto online platforms unfairly discriminates against those without internet access,” said lawyer Kinyanjui.

He submitted that courthouses are funded and maintained by taxpayers but are now lying idle due to virtual proceedings which serves the most privileged instead of every citizen as required by the constitution.

According to lawyer Kinyanjui, Judiciary obsession with e-filing has created more problems than solutions in the delivery of justice.

“There are positives, such as not having to travel to Machakos, Kitale, Mombasa, or other stations. That is a plus. But at the core of litigation is a person dealing with money, emotions, families, and property. The Judiciary has reduced everything to e-filing and forgotten the human being behind the case,” said lawyer Kinyanjui.

He reiterated that people cannot be forced into an online judicial process when they want to test evidence in open court.

He also raised concerns about privacy and data protection, especially in cases handled by the Family Division and Children’s Courts.

Most of virtual platforms cannot allow you to use it without giving permission to access your phone or laptop, he said.

He questioned why should families be exposed to embarrassment and violations of privacy.

He said people are asked online to state their names, ID numbers, and relationships to deceased persons in succession cases, and this data is published.

He said children’s cases are conducted online, yet a child has no chance to say they do not want their life exposed.

He said that digital system but only for those who choose it. Judicial services are a monopoly under Article 46A. He said Judiciary must prioritise what the consumer of justice wants and not impose a take-it-or-leave-it approach.

He said that if one does not have email, smartphone, laptop or internet access, you cannot access the courts which violate Article 48.

.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

WAITITU MOVES TO BLOCK SALE OF NAIROBI PROPERTY OVER SH30 MILLION LOAN DISPUTE.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
WAITITU MOVES TO BLOCK SALE OF NAIROBI PROPERTY OVER SH30 MILLION LOAN DISPUTE.

By Sam Alfan.

Former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu has moved to court to block a lender from selling his Nairobi property over a disputed Sh30 million loan.

Waititu is seeking an injunction to restrain Pelican Credit Limited, its agents from selling, transferring or otherwise dealing with parcels known as Nairobi/Block 105/8847 and Nairobi/Block 105/8659, located within Nairobi County.

The jailed former governor is also asking the court to issue a permanent injunction barring the lender from disposing of the properties through public auction, private treaty or any other means.

Waititu further wants the court to declare that the interest rates and penalties charged by Pelican Credit are unconscionable, illegal and unlawful.

He is also seeking a declaration that any purported sale or transfer of the two properties is null and void and should be set aside.

Waititu argues that he has suffered and continues to suffer immense loss and damage, accusing the lender of persisting with what he terms an unlawful foreclosure process despite demand and notice of intention to seek legal remedies.

According to Waititu, Pelican Credit agreed to advance him Sh30 million, secured by a charge over the two properties registered in his name.

However, he claims the lender never availed copies of the loan agreement or charge documents, which he says he only accessed through the lender’s court responses.

He states that the charge was subject to Kenyan law, specifically the Land Act, 2012 and the Constitution.

Waititu maintains that the loan has been sufficiently serviced, save for a brief default which he says has since been regularised.

He claims to have repaid more than Sh9.8 million but alleges that the lender is now demanding over Sh40 million, a figure he describes as improper, illegal and extortionist.

He further alleges that Pelican Credit imposed penalties and interest rates outside the terms of the charge document and levied arbitrary and illegal interest on the loan account.

The former governor also claims the lender attempted to exercise its statutory power of sale without notifying him, adding that he only learned of the impending auction through social media.

Waititu argues that the intended auction is unlawful, irregular and unprocedural, citing failure to comply with the Land Act, 2012.

He says the lender did not issue him with the mandatory 90-day statutory notice under Section 90(1) or the 40-day notice to sell under Section 96(2) of the Act.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

DCI ALLOWED MORE TIME TO PROBE FOUR IN KAZI MAJUU SH72 MILLION SCAM.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
DCI ALLOWED MORE TIME TO PROBE FOUR IN KAZI MAJUU SH72 MILLION SCAM.

By Sam Alfan.

Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) has been alowed to continue investigating four suspects linked to Kazi Majuu where government lost over Sh70 million in fake jobs abroad.

Milimani Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina granted the DCI 14 days to continue probing Rahma Ochieng Pacho, Rachael Njoki Kariuki, Vincent Oyugi Omondi and Samuel Kibuti Njue.

The four are the main suspects in the scam.

The court ordered them to be reporting to the DCI once per week, as the probe continues.

The DCI told the court that the matter was a public interest case where the government lost taxpayers money to the tune of Sh70 million.

According to the DCI, the money was meant to better the livelihoods of the Kenyan youth through the Kazi Majuu platform.

Chief Inspector Leah Ambiche told the court that she is investigating a case of conspiracy to defraud, abuse of office and offences related to proceeds of crime and money laundering.

The court heard that the matter was reported at the DCI regional offices Nairobi by Rahma Pacho the director of Zawadi Jobs Abroad Limited.

Ambiche further told the court Pacho had alleged that the two individuals Rachael Njoki Karluki and Vincent Oyugi Omondi approached her with a request that they had not renewed their license with National Employment Authority (NEA) but had a job demand for Dubai that required 1075 individuals.

After persuasion by Njoki and Oyugi who are wife and husband, and also considering Pacho was recruiting skilled laborers to Dubai for the first time, she agreed and uploaded the job demand letter from Saif Business Services Centre based in Dubai in her Zawadi Jobs Abroad Limited portal with NEA

Pacho, Njoki and Oyugi later sought financial assistance from the Youth Fund through the Kazi Majuu platform in which by end of July 2025, the government funded a total of 364 candidates with loan of Sh. 72,800,000 million.

The money was meant to assist them during the Ministry of Labor recruitment drive in Coastal region (Malindi, Kwale. Mombasa, Kilifi & Mambrul) as several applicants were unable to raise the requited fees.

The court heard that the investigating officers are in the process of gathering more evidence by recording statements of other witnesses in the matter including the youth who had been sponsored under the Kazi Majuu platform as per Zawadi Job Abroad’s Job order from Dubai.

“There is an urgent need to authenticate the Job Demand Order dated 24th February 2025 allegedly issued by Saif Business Services Centre based in the United Arab Emirates and allegedly attested to by Kenyan Consulate in Dubai,” Ambiche told the court.

The DCI told the court that the suspects are a flight risk and may leave the country if released on bond.

“This is a case of public interest affecting so many youths whose hopes for a brighter future remains in limbo hence the need to ensure the safety of the suspects is paramount,” court heard.

Ambiche said told the cour the suspects conspired to obtain the amount disbursed to the youth and converted the same to their personal use.

According to the court documents, they committed the offence jointly with other suspects who are yet to be arrested.

Documents filed in court by the DCI reveal that after the 364 candidates received the funds from the Youth Fund into their respective bank accounts domiciled at Equity Bank.

The monies were transferred to the bank account number belonging to the recruiting agency Zawadi Jobs Abroad Limited also domiciled at Equity bank.

Pacho informally entered an agreement with the Njoki and Oyugi that was actualized where they assigned each individual company a role.

Glorivin International L associated with Oyugi took up VISA processing role and he allegedly transferred Sh. 13,504,133 to his bank account at Kingdom Bank between 27 and 28 August 2025.

Taushi AUSHI Tours & Travel LTD associated with Njoki took up the air ticket processing roles and Sh. 10,924,133 was transferred to Taushi’s Family bank account on diverse dates between 6th August 2025 and 26 August 2025.

Pacho alleged that Njoki admitted to having used the amounts transferred to her company’s account for personal obligation to clear her child school fees arrears and also cleared a loan owed to shylock.

It is further alleged that Njoki had since then transferred some money back to Pacho through MPesa on diverse dates between 1st July 2025 and 20 January 2026.

It is alleged that the suspects agreed on a plan on how to share the youth money disbursed from Youth fund, while not using it for the intended purpose.

The youths did not travel travel as envisioned and are expected to repay the loan advanced to them by the govenment through the Youth Fund, yet they haven’t benefitted in any way from the loan that was advanced to them.

The Investigations into these allegations are ongoing and several letters have been served to different government institutions, awaiting response.

“There is need to obtain court orders for service to the different banking and mobile money institutions so as to obtain certified documents to be used as evidence in the case,” court heard.

Njoki and Oyugi were arrested on the 22 day of January 2026 and booked vide OB NO.3/22/1/2026 at 0230hrs at Capitol Hill police station while the 1st & 4th respondents were apprehended and booked vide OB 4/23/01/2026 at 0140hrs at Capitol Hill Police station.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet

COMPLAINT OPPOSES DPP’S BID TO WITHDRAW CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST ARMENIAN BUSINESSMAN.

Nairobi TIMES
-
0
COMPLAINT OPPOSES DPP’S BID TO WITHDRAW CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST ARMENIAN BUSINESSMAN.

By NT Correspondent.

A complainant has opposed plans by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Igonga to withdraw a criminal case involving the alleged illegal transfer of shares in a company.

In submissions before the court, the complainant in the case against businessman Artur Tigranyan and two others urged the court to reject the application to withdraw the matter.

Tigranyan is charged alongside Daniel Karega Kinuthia and Felix Achieng Aketch.

The three accused persons face charges of conspiring to illegally transfer 500 shares from Artak Harutyunyan and 250 shares from Tigran Arzumanyan.

It is alleged that they transferred the shares to June Okumu by falsely pretending that they had obtained consent from Harutyunyan and Arzumanyan, who are shareholders of Ceiling Limited.

The offences are said to have been committed between May 2 and August 2, 2023, at an unknown location, jointly with others not before the court.

Artur Tigranyan and Aketch are further accused of forging a transfer deed in respect of the 500 shares allegedly transferred from Urartu Holdings Ltd to Hope June Okumu. The document is said to have been falsely presented as having been signed and stamped by advocate Paul Minishi. The alleged forgery occurred on May 11, 2023, at an unknown place.

The prosecution indicated that it intended to withdraw the criminal case to allow the complainant to pursue the dispute through a civil suit.

A prosecutor informed the court in December that she had received instructions to withdraw the case.

She told the court that the decision followed a review process conducted by the Office of the DPP.

The court was further informed that, after considering “all the circumstances” surrounding the matter, the DPP concluded that the dispute would be better resolved through civil proceedings.

The complainant opposed the move, faulting the process used by the DPP in seeking to withdraw the case.

“The method of review by the DPP is not only strange but an obvious case of bias that would only result in a mistrial,” the complainant told trial magistrate Paul Mutahi.

The complainant argued that the court should be allowed to evaluate the evidence on record after the close of the prosecution’s case and then determine whether the accused persons have a case to answer.

“It is unfair for the prosecution to seek to withdraw this case and recommend a civil trial. Your Honour, the prosecution is not saying that there are no triable issues or that there is no prima facie case. They are merely stating that, in their opinion, these triable issues should be handled by a civil court,” the court heard.

The complainant further submitted that the court has a duty to safeguard the rights guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution, including the right to a fair trial and the rights of victims.

The court also heard that Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 guarantees equality before the law, freedom from discrimination, and equal protection of the law.

“Due process means that the court, as an impartial adjudicator, must hear the case presented before it and render an impartial judgment after considering both the prosecution and the defence. It is not the role of the prosecution, which is a party to the case, to decide its fate,” the complainant submitted.

The complainant added that the prosecution’s recommendation to withdraw the case on the basis that it should be handled by a civil court was outrageous, amounted to an overstep of its mandate, and demonstrated clear bias.

“The prosecution is denying the court an opportunity to evaluate the evidence while infringing on the victim’s right to a fair trial,” the court heard.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet
123...547Page 1 of 547
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv