Court News

A High Court in Nairobi has acquitted rally driver Maxine Wahome of the murder of her boyfriend, Asad Khan. The ruling brings to a close a closely watched criminal case after the court found that the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to require her to present a defence.

Court finds no case to answer

In a judgment delivered by Justice Lilian Mutende, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. The judge ruled that the evidence on record was insufficient to require Wahome to answer the murder charge.

Lawyer Steve Kimathi, who represented Wahome throughout the case, welcomed the judgment. He said he and his client were relieved by the court’s decision.

“I am extremely pleased with the Court’s decision to acquit Maxine. This is a case that should never have been brought before the courts in the first place, yet the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions chose to pursue it. Today’s judgment is a vindication of my client’s innocence and, most importantly, it has cleared her name. I welcome the Court’s decision and am grateful that justice has prevailed,” Kimathi said.

How the case began

The case arose from an incident at Preston Apartments on Oloitoktok Road in Nairobi on December 12, 2022.

Khan sustained serious injuries during the incident. He later died in hospital.

Over the course of the trial, the prosecution called 29 witnesses. Prosecutors sought to demonstrate that Wahome was responsible for the injuries that ultimately led to Khan’s death.

After reviewing the testimony, however, the court found that none of the witnesses directly linked Wahome to the alleged assault.

Court reviews the evidence

The prosecution argued that only Wahome and Khan were inside the apartment at the material time.

However, Justice Mutende ruled that this circumstance alone could not support an inference of guilt.

The judge emphasized that a conviction for murder requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an unlawful act that caused the deceased’s death. The prosecution must also prove that the act was committed with malice aforethought.

The court found that the prosecution had not established those essential elements.

Medical and forensic evidence

Medical evidence presented during the hearing showed that Khan died from sepsis after suffering multiple injuries. The injuries included head trauma, bruising and injuries to his arms, which doctors described as defensive wounds.

The court also heard expert testimony indicating that the head injuries were consistent with a fall.

In addition, evidence suggested there were gaps in Khan’s treatment after his transfer from Nairobi Hospital to Avenue Hospital. The defence argued that those gaps may have contributed to the eventual outcome.

Witness and forensic testimony

Prosecutors also relied on claims that Wahome locked the apartment after the incident and prevented Khan’s relatives from gaining access.

They also presented WhatsApp messages exchanged between the couple before the incident.

However, no witness testified to seeing Wahome assault Khan.

A neighbour told the court that he heard Khan ask Wahome to leave the apartment. He also heard Wahome respond that she was leaving. However, he did not witness any physical confrontation.

The forensic evidence also failed to connect Wahome to the alleged assault.

Investigators recovered blood from the apartment that matched Khan’s DNA. However, they did not recover blood-stained clothing or other forensic material linking Wahome to the injuries.

A scenes-of-crime officer also acknowledged that broken glass found in the apartment could have broken from inside the house.

The court also considered evidence showing that Wahome had locked herself on the apartment balcony during the incident and had sustained swelling to her head.

Toxicology results presented during the trial showed that Khan had alcohol, narcotics and medication prescribed for diabetes and hypertension in his system.

Court acquits Wahome

Justice Mutende further observed that even the investigating officer could not state with certainty that Wahome inflicted the injuries that caused Khan’s death.

After reviewing all the prosecution’s evidence, the court found that it did not rise above suspicion or speculation. The judge ruled that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the murder charge.

The court therefore acquitted Wahome without calling on her to present a defence.

Advocate Samwel Barongo Nyamari has filed a constitutional petition before the High Court seeking to prohibit the playing of loud and unsolicited music in public service vehicles, arguing that the practice infringes on the constitutional rights of commuters.

In the case, Nyamari has named the Matatu Owners Association, the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and the Attorney General as respondents.

He is asking the court to intervene and halt what he describes as persistent excessive noise in matatus.

The petition was mentioned before Justice Patricia Nyaundi at the Milimani Law Courts, where Nyamari argued that many passengers are compelled to endure loud music during their journeys without being consulted or given the option to opt out.

According to the petitioner, the practice violates a number of constitutional rights, including the right to human dignity, privacy and a clean and healthy environment.

He contends that commuters should not be subjected to excessive noise while using public transport against their wishes.

Nyamari is also asking the court to determine whether matatu operators can lawfully play loud music throughout a journey without obtaining passengers’ consent and whether the practice is compatible with constitutional protections.

Following the mention of the matter, Justice Nyaundi directed all parties to file and exchange their written submissions before the case proceeds to judgment.

The High Court is expected to deliver its judgment on April 29, 2027.

The High court has postponed issuing directions in a habeas corpus application filed over the disappearance of Abdulaziz Zizou after the applicant’s legal team sought to have the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) formally joined to the proceedings.

The application was mentioned before Justice Alexander Muteti at the Milimani Law Courts, where counsel for the applicant argued that both institutions have a direct interest in the matter, having received complaints relating to Zizou’s disappearance.

The court heard that members of Zizou’s family reported the alleged disappearance to IPOA, prompting the registration of a complaint for investigation. A separate complaint was also lodged with KNCHR, with the applicant relying on the commission’s constitutional mandate to investigate alleged human rights violations.

Counsel Abner Mango submitted that the case raises concerns over alleged breaches of constitutional protections, including freedom from torture and the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The lawyer argued that the participation of IPOA and KNCHR would assist the court in determining the facts surrounding Zizou’s whereabouts.

Justice Muteti observed that the two bodies could not participate in the proceedings unless they were first formally admitted to the case, either as substantive parties or as interested parties through an application before the court.

Mango subsequently informed the court that a formal application to enjoin IPOA and KNCHR would be filed within the week for the court’s consideration.

The matter is scheduled for further directions on July 30, 2026.

Advocate Samwel Barongo Nyamari has filed a constitutional petition before the high court seeking to prohibit the playing of loud and unsolicited music in public service vehicles, arguing that the practice infringes on the constitutional rights of commuters.

In the case, Nyamari has named the Matatu Owners Association, the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and the Attorney General as respondents.

He is asking the court to intervene and halt what he describes as persistent excessive noise in matatus.

The petition was mentioned before Justice Patricia Nyaundi at the Milimani Law Courts, where Nyamari argued that many passengers are compelled to endure loud music during their journeys without being consulted or given the option to opt out.

According to the petitioner, the practice violates a number of constitutional rights, including the right to human dignity, privacy and a clean and healthy environment.

He contends that commuters should not be subjected to excessive noise while using public transport against their wishes.

Nyamari is also asking the court to determine whether matatu operators can lawfully play loud music throughout a journey without obtaining passengers’ consent and whether the practice is compatible with constitutional protections.

Following the mention of the matter, Justice Nyaundi directed all parties to file and exchange their written submissions before the case proceeds to judgment.

The high court is expected to deliver its judgment on April 29, 2027.

The court has declined to grant urgency in a petition challenging Tourism Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Miano over her alleged involvement in the Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election campaigns.

Lady Justice Lilian Mutende directed the petitioner to serve the application to the respondents and interested parties within 14 days. The matter will then be mentioned before the Presiding Judge in Ol Kalou on 3 August 2026 for further directions.

Activist Francis Awino filed the petition through a Certificate of Urgency on 21 July 2026. He accused the Cabinet Secretary of violating Section 7 of the Constitution under Chapter Six, which deals with Leadership and Integrity.

Awino alleges that the Cabinet Secretary actively participated in partisan politics during the Ol Kalou campaigns. He further claims that state resources, including government funds and security, supported the activities.

In his supporting affidavit, Awino stated that the involvement of a serving Cabinet Secretary in partisan political activities violates the Constitution of Kenya. He argued that State officers must act with neutrality, objectivity and accountability.

The petitioner is seeking orders to stop CS Miano from engaging in political activities while serving as a Cabinet Secretary. He is also asking the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to investigate her actions.

The case names Hon. Rebecca Miano and the Attorney General as respondents. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the EACC are listed as interested parties.

The Ol Kalou seat became vacant after long-serving MP David Njuguna Kiaraho died in March 2026. In the by-election, Democratic for the Citizens Party (DCP) candidate Sammy Kamau Ngotho received 35,440 votes. United Democratic Alliance (UDA) candidate Samuel Muchina Nyagah received 5,450 votes.

An international gold investor on Wednesday, July 22, 2026, told the Milimani Magistrate’s Court that he transferred USD 505,000 into bank accounts belonging to Conrad Law Advocates LLP. He said the money formed part of a gold transaction that is the subject of an ongoing criminal case.

The witness testified before Principal Magistrate P.K. Mutai.

Investor recounts meeting with advocate

In his testimony, the investor said he met advocate Conrad Maloba at his office on the 15th floor of the Global Trade Centre (GTC) in Nairobi before making the payments.

“I met him in his office in Level 15 in the Global Trade Centre, at 1502, at Maloba Advocates office,” the witness told the court.

The witness said he made two transfers from his account at Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank (ADIB) in Dubai on February 13, 2026. He added that he made the payments at Maloba’s request.

“That amount was paid on the 13th of February 2026,” he said, adding, “It was sent from me on request of Conrad.”

Witness explains the transfers

According to the witness, the first transfer amounted to USD 495,000. He deposited the money into Ecobank Kenya account number 66******80, which he identified as Conrad Law Advocates LLP Trust Account.

“The first account number was 66******80… In EcoBank Kenya and that’s Conrad Law Advocates LLP Trust Account,” the witness testified.

He further told the court that he transferred another USD 10,000 on the same day into Diamond Trust Bank account number 071*****02.

“It is a different account number… 071*****02, and it’s for Diamond Trust Bank Limited, Conrad Law Advocates LLP,” he said.

The witness produced SWIFT transfer documents issued by Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank. He told the court that the documents confirmed the transfers had been successfully processed.

“That’s the legal document in international financial transfers. You receive a SWIFT document when the funds have been received and arrived in an account,” he testified.

The prosecution asked the court to admit the SWIFT transfer documents as prosecution exhibits.

Agreements signed before the payments

The court also heard that the parties signed three agreements before the investor transferred the funds.

“There were three documents that were signed. The first was a Sales and Purchase Agreement… the third agreement is a Letter of Engagement for Legal Services and Funds Management, which was signed with Conrad Law Advocates LLP,” the witness said.

According to the witness, the parties signed the Sales and Purchase Agreement on January 19, 2026. The agreement involved Business Express Enterprises Limited, Mohammadi Faraji and Sakina Commodities FZCO, the company he represented as director.

He testified that the agreement provided for the supply of 600 kilograms of gold dore bars. It also included a 10-kilogram collateral arrangement.

“What was agreed in this agreement is that a total consignment amount of 600 kilos, less 10 kilos of collateral, would be provided in the form of 1kg gold dore bars,” the witness told the court.

Hearing continues

The hearing continues before Principal Magistrate P.K. Mutai at the Milimani Magistrate’s Court.

The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) has rejected former ODM Secretary General Edwin Sifuna’s request to stop the Registrar of Political Parties from gazetting his removal from office.

The decision allows the implementation of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution of June 22, 2026, to continue as the dispute proceeds before the Tribunal.

Sifuna challenges removal

The ruling allows the Registrar of Political Parties to continue processing changes arising from the ODM resolution while the Tribunal handles the dispute.

Sifuna filed a fresh complaint and application seeking to overturn his removal. He argues that the ODM Disciplinary Panel acted unfairly and denied him an opportunity to receive a fair hearing.

ODM opposes application

Appearing for the Orange Democratic Movement, advocate Ken Amondi, alongside Simeon Mongare and T.J. Kajwang, opposed Sifuna’s application.

The party argued that Sifuna had an opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceedings but chose not to take part. ODM maintained that the process remained open and transparent.

ODM also challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The party argued that the NEC resolution had already taken effect after officials forwarded it to the Registrar of Political Parties.

According to ODM, the matter was no longer an internal party dispute after the Registrar received the decision. The party therefore argued that the Tribunal could not intervene.

Tribunal sets hearing date

Although the Tribunal declined to issue interim orders, it directed parties to argue Sifuna’s fresh application on July 21, 2026.

The matter was heard before a five-member bench comprising Presiding Member Gathu Kiragu and members Jin Muzna Mohamed Yusuf, Stephen Musau, Theresa Chepkowony and Abdirahman Adan Abdikadir.

Former journalist John Mugo Njeru and his wife, Editor Irima Mugo, have denied 12 criminal charges linked to the alleged fraudulent acquisition of a prime parcel of land valued at KSh1.176 billion in Syokimau, Machakos County.

Couple pleads not guilty

The couple appeared before Mavoko Resident Magistrate Faith Boit and pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiracy to defraud, making false documents, obtaining land registration by false pretences, forgery and uttering forged documents.

According to the prosecution, the charges relate to Nairobi Block 165/1314, a 3.775-hectare property. Investigators say the land belongs to Kyoga Hauliers Limited.

Court documents allege that the couple unlawfully obtained registration of the land by relying on fabricated ownership records. Prosecutors claim they prepared false land documents, including a purported Grant and Deed Plan. They allegedly used the documents to facilitate registration of the property.

The prosecution also alleges that several official signatures on the disputed documents were forged. These include signatures said to belong to former Commissioner of Lands Zablon Agwata Mabea, land registrars F.N. Orare and P.N. Mburu, and survey officials Ben Siro and Gitau.

In addition to the joint charges, prosecutors separately accuse John Mugo of presenting forged land documents to investigators at the Directorate of Criminal Investigations headquarters on June 3, 2026. They allege that he knew the documents were not genuine.

Defence seeks more time

Before plea-taking, defence counsel Philemon Koech asked the court to postpone the proceedings. He said the parties had started discussions aimed at resolving the dispute outside court.

“There are ongoing engagements between the parties, and we respectfully ask the court to allow that process to continue before plea is taken,” Koech submitted.

The complainant’s lawyer, Ken Echesa, opposed the application. He said his client was unaware of any settlement negotiations.

“My instructions are that the complainant is unaware of any negotiations. We therefore urge the court to proceed with the plea,” Echesa told the magistrate.

Court orders pre-bail reports

After the couple entered their plea, the defence asked the court to release them on bond. Counsel argued that they had honoured police summons voluntarily and that their detention had left their young child without parental care.

The court did not determine the bond application immediately. Instead, it directed probation officers to prepare pre-bail reports to assess whether the accused are suitable for release.

The matter will come up tomorrow. The court will consider the pre-bail reports before giving directions on the bond application.

Parents and officials at Gatoto Community Primary School have vowed to challenge a High Court decision that could change the Mukuru kwa Njenga institution from a public school into a privately managed Alternative Provision of Basic Education and Training (APBET) institution.

The parents, supported by local residents, argue that the community owns the school. They say residents established the institution to provide education for children from one of Nairobi’s largest informal settlements.

They fear the court orders could change the school’s identity and affect future generations of learners.

Parents challenge high court decision

The parents’ legal team, led by advocates Danstan Omari and Martina Swiga, said they will return to court to stop the implementation of the orders.

The lawyers argue that the interests of learners and the wider community should come before ownership disputes.

They say the case involves more than a disagreement over property.

“This is about protecting the education of children who have relied on this institution for decades. The community cannot stand by and watch a public learning institution change hands without exhausting every legal avenue available,” they said.

Court orders school transition

The dispute started after the High Court delivered a judgment on June 25.

The court directed education authorities to register Gatoto Community Primary School as a private non-profit APBET institution under the management of the petitioners.

The court also ordered authorities to transfer control of the school on July 2. The Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD) Makadara would provide security during the process.

Parents have rejected the decision. They argue that the community established the school and has supported it for more than three decades.

Community defends school history

Residents say the community donated the land to create a school for local children, not for private ownership.

They maintain that the school has operated since 1994 and has educated thousands of pupils. Many former learners still live in Mukuru kwa Njenga.

Long-time resident Scholastica Mwongeli said residents fought for years to make the school part of the public education system.

She questioned claims that describe the institution as a privately created school.

Mwongeli added that many people involved in the ownership dispute once attended the school. She said residents understand the institution’s history.

Parents seek further court action

Parents have asked the Ministry of Education to intervene before the transition begins.

They warn that changing the school’s status could create uncertainty for learners and teachers.

The parents also plan to seek fresh orders from the Court of Appeal to suspend the High Court decision as they challenge the ruling.

They maintain that Gatoto Community Primary School should continue operating as a public institution serving children from Mukuru kwa Njenga.