A Russian national, Kristina Berman, has obtained temporary relief after the High Court in Nairobi halted her planned prosecution, pending the hearing of a constitutional petition challenging the decision to charge her.
In orders issued on April 23, 2026, Justice Patricia Mande Nyaundi stayed the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to institute criminal charges against Berman.
“That a conservatory order is hereby issued… staying the decision of the 1st Respondent contained in the letter dated 25th February, 2026 to prefer criminal charges against the Applicant… pending interpartes hearing,” the court ruled.
The court further directed that the matter be mentioned on June 9, 2026, for compliance and further directions.
Berman, through her advocate Robinson Kigen, argues that the intended prosecution is an abuse of the criminal justice system, maintaining that it is “for extraneous purpose, is malicious and oppressive and is intended to assist the Petitioner’s husband in settling personal scores.”
Court documents show that Berman married her estranged husband, Mikhail Berman, in November 2013 before relocating to Kenya in January 2014, where they have lived with their child.
According to the petition, the marriage later broke down, with Berman alleging emotional and psychological abuse. She further claims that between January and April 2025, she was coerced to travel to Russia to file divorce proceedings and was threatened with withdrawal of financial support and cancellation of her dependant’s pass if she refused.
The documents state that after she travelled to Moscow on April 7, 2025, her husband took custody of their child and the threats intensified, allegedly aimed at preventing her return to Kenya.
The dispute also extends to business interests held under Bright Villa Limited, a company through which the couple jointly owns property in Karen. Berman alleges that during her absence, her husband attempted to fraudulently transfer her shares by using forged documents, including a forged affidavit, resignation letter, and company minutes.
She further claims that her motor vehicle was fraudulently transferred and sold using what is described in the petition as a fake court order, which was later confirmed by the court as not having been issued.
Despite reporting these alleged fraudulent transactions, Berman contends that no action was taken against her husband, while authorities moved to pursue criminal charges against her based on what she describes as false allegations.
The petition also details an ongoing custody dispute, with Berman alleging that her husband lodged false claims at Lang’ata Police Station accusing her of assaulting their child. She argues that the allegations were intended to “threaten, intimidate, exert pressure… and to exclude her from fair proceedings concerning custody and property rights.”
Further, Berman states that she discovered her dependant’s pass had been cancelled without prior notice when she was taken to immigration offices, an action she argues violated her right to fair administrative action.
The High Court orders now temporarily bar her arrest or prosecution while the court determines whether her constitutional rights have been violated.
The case is expected to address key issues surrounding the alleged misuse of criminal proceedings in private disputes, as well as the protection of constitutional rights, including fair administrative action, property rights, and access to justice.
