![Lexken_EMSLaw's tweet photo. ๐จ A letter of allotment is not a title deed. If the conditions attached to it are not met in time, the entitlement can lapse, and whoever later buys the land may be buying nothing.
This is Mbau & another v Kitaka [2026] KEELC 6962 (KLR).
Two parties claimed the same plot in the Kiboko "B" Settlement Scheme in Makueni. The first man was allotted the plot in 1999 by a letter of offer. The letter was not an unconditional grant. It was valid for 90 days and required him to accept it, pay a ten per cent deposit and complete the documentation within that time, and it stated that failure would lead to cancellation without further notice. He did none of those things in time.
Because the conditions were not met, the offer lapsed and, by its own terms, stood cancelled automatically. The plot was then allocated afresh to the second man, who accepted and paid in 2009, took possession and built permanent houses on it. Years later, the first man purported to sell the plot to a buyer to raise medical fees, and the buyer's agents went on to demolish those houses.
The court's reasoning followed a straight line.
โ
First, an allocation made subject to express conditions does not confer a continuing entitlement where the allottee fails to meet those conditions within the stipulated period. The first man's later payments could not revive an offer that had already lapsed.
โ
Second, once the offer had lapsed, he had nothing to sell. A person cannot pass what he does not hold, so the sale transferred no title.
โ
Third, the buyer was not protected as an innocent purchaser. The law shields a purchaser for value only where he buys in good faith and without notice of a defect, and here the warning signs were plain.
There were permanent houses on the land, which should have prompted him to ask who was in possession, and the sale agreement itself set aside six hundred thousand shillings to evict an occupant, a clear signal that the seller's title was doubtful. Real due diligence would have shown that the conditions of the original allocation were never met. The buyer was therefore not a bona fide purchaser without notice.
The court also distinguished the familiar rule that, where two titles compete, the first in time prevails. That rule is for two regularly issued titles. Where the first allocation had lapsed for non-compliance, there was no competing title to rank first, and the land was free to be allocated to someone else. The true owner was confirmed, and his proven losses, valued by a quantity surveyor at about KSh 537,354, were awarded.
The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, the buyer paid money and relied on documents the seller held, including a later certificate suggesting ownership, and it is hard to watch an apparently honest purchaser lose both the land and his money. If buyers cannot rely on the papers a seller produces, land transactions become perilous. On the other side, conditions attached to settlement land exist so that it goes to those who meet the terms and actually settle and develop it, and rewarding a lapsed allottee, or a buyer who ignored people living on the land, would defeat that purpose. The buyer was not truly without notice, and his remedy lies against the seller, not in the true owner's land. Where the security of a transaction ends and the duty to look before you buy begins is the question the case leaves.
Key takeaway: an allotment letter subject to conditions is not ownership. If the conditions lapse, so does the entitlement, nothing can be sold from it, and a buyer who overlooks occupants and red flags is not protected. Before you buy land, confirm not just that the seller holds papers, but that the allocation behind them was ever completed.
๐ Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law and conveyancing.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVsbT0qWsAAgKY9.jpg)
![Lexken_EMSLaw's tweet photo. ๐จ A letter of allotment is not a title deed. If the conditions attached to it are not met in time, the entitlement can lapse, and whoever later buys the land may be buying nothing.
This is Mbau & another v Kitaka [2026] KEELC 6962 (KLR).
Two parties claimed the same plot in the Kiboko "B" Settlement Scheme in Makueni. The first man was allotted the plot in 1999 by a letter of offer. The letter was not an unconditional grant. It was valid for 90 days and required him to accept it, pay a ten per cent deposit and complete the documentation within that time, and it stated that failure would lead to cancellation without further notice. He did none of those things in time.
Because the conditions were not met, the offer lapsed and, by its own terms, stood cancelled automatically. The plot was then allocated afresh to the second man, who accepted and paid in 2009, took possession and built permanent houses on it. Years later, the first man purported to sell the plot to a buyer to raise medical fees, and the buyer's agents went on to demolish those houses.
The court's reasoning followed a straight line.
โ
First, an allocation made subject to express conditions does not confer a continuing entitlement where the allottee fails to meet those conditions within the stipulated period. The first man's later payments could not revive an offer that had already lapsed.
โ
Second, once the offer had lapsed, he had nothing to sell. A person cannot pass what he does not hold, so the sale transferred no title.
โ
Third, the buyer was not protected as an innocent purchaser. The law shields a purchaser for value only where he buys in good faith and without notice of a defect, and here the warning signs were plain.
There were permanent houses on the land, which should have prompted him to ask who was in possession, and the sale agreement itself set aside six hundred thousand shillings to evict an occupant, a clear signal that the seller's title was doubtful. Real due diligence would have shown that the conditions of the original allocation were never met. The buyer was therefore not a bona fide purchaser without notice.
The court also distinguished the familiar rule that, where two titles compete, the first in time prevails. That rule is for two regularly issued titles. Where the first allocation had lapsed for non-compliance, there was no competing title to rank first, and the land was free to be allocated to someone else. The true owner was confirmed, and his proven losses, valued by a quantity surveyor at about KSh 537,354, were awarded.
The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, the buyer paid money and relied on documents the seller held, including a later certificate suggesting ownership, and it is hard to watch an apparently honest purchaser lose both the land and his money. If buyers cannot rely on the papers a seller produces, land transactions become perilous. On the other side, conditions attached to settlement land exist so that it goes to those who meet the terms and actually settle and develop it, and rewarding a lapsed allottee, or a buyer who ignored people living on the land, would defeat that purpose. The buyer was not truly without notice, and his remedy lies against the seller, not in the true owner's land. Where the security of a transaction ends and the duty to look before you buy begins is the question the case leaves.
Key takeaway: an allotment letter subject to conditions is not ownership. If the conditions lapse, so does the entitlement, nothing can be sold from it, and a buyer who overlooks occupants and red flags is not protected. Before you buy land, confirm not just that the seller holds papers, but that the allocation behind them was ever completed.
๐ Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law and conveyancing.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVsbT0oXIAA9rNz.jpg)
![Lexken_EMSLaw's tweet photo. ๐จ A letter of allotment is not a title deed. If the conditions attached to it are not met in time, the entitlement can lapse, and whoever later buys the land may be buying nothing.
This is Mbau & another v Kitaka [2026] KEELC 6962 (KLR).
Two parties claimed the same plot in the Kiboko "B" Settlement Scheme in Makueni. The first man was allotted the plot in 1999 by a letter of offer. The letter was not an unconditional grant. It was valid for 90 days and required him to accept it, pay a ten per cent deposit and complete the documentation within that time, and it stated that failure would lead to cancellation without further notice. He did none of those things in time.
Because the conditions were not met, the offer lapsed and, by its own terms, stood cancelled automatically. The plot was then allocated afresh to the second man, who accepted and paid in 2009, took possession and built permanent houses on it. Years later, the first man purported to sell the plot to a buyer to raise medical fees, and the buyer's agents went on to demolish those houses.
The court's reasoning followed a straight line.
โ
First, an allocation made subject to express conditions does not confer a continuing entitlement where the allottee fails to meet those conditions within the stipulated period. The first man's later payments could not revive an offer that had already lapsed.
โ
Second, once the offer had lapsed, he had nothing to sell. A person cannot pass what he does not hold, so the sale transferred no title.
โ
Third, the buyer was not protected as an innocent purchaser. The law shields a purchaser for value only where he buys in good faith and without notice of a defect, and here the warning signs were plain.
There were permanent houses on the land, which should have prompted him to ask who was in possession, and the sale agreement itself set aside six hundred thousand shillings to evict an occupant, a clear signal that the seller's title was doubtful. Real due diligence would have shown that the conditions of the original allocation were never met. The buyer was therefore not a bona fide purchaser without notice.
The court also distinguished the familiar rule that, where two titles compete, the first in time prevails. That rule is for two regularly issued titles. Where the first allocation had lapsed for non-compliance, there was no competing title to rank first, and the land was free to be allocated to someone else. The true owner was confirmed, and his proven losses, valued by a quantity surveyor at about KSh 537,354, were awarded.
The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, the buyer paid money and relied on documents the seller held, including a later certificate suggesting ownership, and it is hard to watch an apparently honest purchaser lose both the land and his money. If buyers cannot rely on the papers a seller produces, land transactions become perilous. On the other side, conditions attached to settlement land exist so that it goes to those who meet the terms and actually settle and develop it, and rewarding a lapsed allottee, or a buyer who ignored people living on the land, would defeat that purpose. The buyer was not truly without notice, and his remedy lies against the seller, not in the true owner's land. Where the security of a transaction ends and the duty to look before you buy begins is the question the case leaves.
Key takeaway: an allotment letter subject to conditions is not ownership. If the conditions lapse, so does the entitlement, nothing can be sold from it, and a buyer who overlooks occupants and red flags is not protected. Before you buy land, confirm not just that the seller holds papers, but that the allocation behind them was ever completed.
๐ Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law and conveyancing.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVsbT0nWoAAxqN7.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Karim ๐ต๐ธ๐ฎ๐ท
@RalphEd_
Farmer. Ambivert. Human Rights. Law & politics. Prone to fits of apathy. I learn from the mistakes of people who took my advice.
Houston, TX
Joined April 2009
5.9K Following
1.3K Followers
83.9K Posts
๐จ A letter of allotment is not a title deed. If the conditions attached to it are not met in time, the entitlement can lapse, and whoever later buys the land may be buying nothing.
This is Mbau & another v Kitaka [2026] KEELC 6962 (KLR).
Two parties claimed the same plot in the Kiboko "B" Settlement Scheme in Makueni. The first man was allotted the plot in 1999 by a letter of offer. The letter was not an unconditional grant. It was valid for 90 days and required him to accept it, pay a ten per cent deposit and complete the documentation within that time, and it stated that failure would lead to cancellation without further notice. He did none of those things in time.
Because the conditions were not met, the offer lapsed and, by its own terms, stood cancelled automatically. The plot was then allocated afresh to the second man, who accepted and paid in 2009, took possession and built permanent houses on it. Years later, the first man purported to sell the plot to a buyer to raise medical fees, and the buyer's agents went on to demolish those houses.
The court's reasoning followed a straight line.
โ
First, an allocation made subject to express conditions does not confer a continuing entitlement where the allottee fails to meet those conditions within the stipulated period. The first man's later payments could not revive an offer that had already lapsed.
โ
Second, once the offer had lapsed, he had nothing to sell. A person cannot pass what he does not hold, so the sale transferred no title.
โ
Third, the buyer was not protected as an innocent purchaser. The law shields a purchaser for value only where he buys in good faith and without notice of a defect, and here the warning signs were plain.
There were permanent houses on the land, which should have prompted him to ask who was in possession, and the sale agreement itself set aside six hundred thousand shillings to evict an occupant, a clear signal that the seller's title was doubtful. Real due diligence would have shown that the conditions of the original allocation were never met. The buyer was therefore not a bona fide purchaser without notice.
The court also distinguished the familiar rule that, where two titles compete, the first in time prevails. That rule is for two regularly issued titles. Where the first allocation had lapsed for non-compliance, there was no competing title to rank first, and the land was free to be allocated to someone else. The true owner was confirmed, and his proven losses, valued by a quantity surveyor at about KSh 537,354, were awarded.
The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, the buyer paid money and relied on documents the seller held, including a later certificate suggesting ownership, and it is hard to watch an apparently honest purchaser lose both the land and his money. If buyers cannot rely on the papers a seller produces, land transactions become perilous. On the other side, conditions attached to settlement land exist so that it goes to those who meet the terms and actually settle and develop it, and rewarding a lapsed allottee, or a buyer who ignored people living on the land, would defeat that purpose. The buyer was not truly without notice, and his remedy lies against the seller, not in the true owner's land. Where the security of a transaction ends and the duty to look before you buy begins is the question the case leaves.
Key takeaway: an allotment letter subject to conditions is not ownership. If the conditions lapse, so does the entitlement, nothing can be sold from it, and a buyer who overlooks occupants and red flags is not protected. Before you buy land, confirm not just that the seller holds papers, but that the allocation behind them was ever completed.
๐ Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law and conveyancing.
![Lexken_EMSLaw's tweet photo. ๐จ A letter of allotment is not a title deed. If the conditions attached to it are not met in time, the entitlement can lapse, and whoever later buys the land may be buying nothing.
This is Mbau & another v Kitaka [2026] KEELC 6962 (KLR).
Two parties claimed the same plot in the Kiboko "B" Settlement Scheme in Makueni. The first man was allotted the plot in 1999 by a letter of offer. The letter was not an unconditional grant. It was valid for 90 days and required him to accept it, pay a ten per cent deposit and complete the documentation within that time, and it stated that failure would lead to cancellation without further notice. He did none of those things in time.
Because the conditions were not met, the offer lapsed and, by its own terms, stood cancelled automatically. The plot was then allocated afresh to the second man, who accepted and paid in 2009, took possession and built permanent houses on it. Years later, the first man purported to sell the plot to a buyer to raise medical fees, and the buyer's agents went on to demolish those houses.
The court's reasoning followed a straight line.
โ
First, an allocation made subject to express conditions does not confer a continuing entitlement where the allottee fails to meet those conditions within the stipulated period. The first man's later payments could not revive an offer that had already lapsed.
โ
Second, once the offer had lapsed, he had nothing to sell. A person cannot pass what he does not hold, so the sale transferred no title.
โ
Third, the buyer was not protected as an innocent purchaser. The law shields a purchaser for value only where he buys in good faith and without notice of a defect, and here the warning signs were plain.
There were permanent houses on the land, which should have prompted him to ask who was in possession, and the sale agreement itself set aside six hundred thousand shillings to evict an occupant, a clear signal that the seller's title was doubtful. Real due diligence would have shown that the conditions of the original allocation were never met. The buyer was therefore not a bona fide purchaser without notice.
The court also distinguished the familiar rule that, where two titles compete, the first in time prevails. That rule is for two regularly issued titles. Where the first allocation had lapsed for non-compliance, there was no competing title to rank first, and the land was free to be allocated to someone else. The true owner was confirmed, and his proven losses, valued by a quantity surveyor at about KSh 537,354, were awarded.
The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, the buyer paid money and relied on documents the seller held, including a later certificate suggesting ownership, and it is hard to watch an apparently honest purchaser lose both the land and his money. If buyers cannot rely on the papers a seller produces, land transactions become perilous. On the other side, conditions attached to settlement land exist so that it goes to those who meet the terms and actually settle and develop it, and rewarding a lapsed allottee, or a buyer who ignored people living on the land, would defeat that purpose. The buyer was not truly without notice, and his remedy lies against the seller, not in the true owner's land. Where the security of a transaction ends and the duty to look before you buy begins is the question the case leaves.
Key takeaway: an allotment letter subject to conditions is not ownership. If the conditions lapse, so does the entitlement, nothing can be sold from it, and a buyer who overlooks occupants and red flags is not protected. Before you buy land, confirm not just that the seller holds papers, but that the allocation behind them was ever completed.
๐ Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on land law and conveyancing.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HVsbT0vXwAAjXHe.jpg)
Born to read beautiful openers?๐คฉ
Enters Justice Diana Kavedza with a two paged opening statement in the Shakahola Judgment:
Double Tragedy as Rose Mbithe & Her 2 Children Faces Second Murder Charge Of Lawyer Kyalo Mbobu
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ก ๐๐๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฏ.๐ฎ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ข๐ก ๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ฃ๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ก ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐
Twelve accused persons in the Kes283.2 million Nairobi City cemetery land scandal have been placed on their defence after the Milimani Anti-Corruption Court ruled that they have a case to answer.
Principal Magistrate Hon. Celesa Okore delivered the ruling on October 27, 2026, in Milimani Anti-Corruption Case No. 19 of 2010, with the defence hearing scheduled for January 25โ29, 2027.
The accused are Sammy Kipngโetich Kirui, Mary Ngechi Ngโethe, Alexander Musanga Musee, Maina Chege, Naen Rech Limited, Newton Omondi Osiemo, Alphonce Mutinda, Paul Chapia Onduso, Davies Odero Osiemo, Joseph Owino Kโojwando, Daniel Mulwa Nguku and Herman Stevens Chavera. They face various charges, including conspiracy to commit corruption, fraudulent acquisition and disposal of public property, and fraudulent practices in procurement proceedings.
However, proceedings against the second accused, Mary Ngechi Ngโethe, are subject to a stay granted by the Court of Appeal pending determination of the matter before the superior court.
The case stems from allegations of a scheme to defraud the Ministry of Local Government and the defunct City Council of Nairobi of public funds intended for the purchase of land for use as a cemetery.
Investigations by the EACC established that between December 2008 and April 2009, the accused conspired to defraud the two institutions of Kes283.2 million by presenting the amount as the purchase price for land parcel L.R. No. 14759/2, purportedly intended for use as a public cemetery.
Investigations revealed that various accused persons fraudulently acquired different sums of public money in February 2009, ranging from Kes8 million to Kes281.3 million.
Investigations further established that the accused fraudulently disposed of Kes117 million belonging to the City Council of Nairobi and the Ministry of Local Government, purportedly presenting the amount as proceeds from the sale of the cemetery land by Naen Rech Limited.
EACC welcomes the courtโs finding that the accused persons have a case to answer. The Commission will continue to support the prosecution in accordance with its mandate as the matter proceeds.
The accused persons remain presumed innocent until proved guilty.
๐จ A post on X has cost KSh 3 million, and the warning in this judgment reaches not only the person who wrote it but everyone who shares a claim before checking whether it is true.
This is the defamation judgment in favour of musician Hubert Mbuku Nakitare (Nonini), delivered by the Milimani Commercial Magistrate's Court on 26 October 2026. Here is what it means.
Musician Nonini sued Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) CEO Ezekiel Mutua for defamation following a public fallout over music royalty distributions and social media attacks.
The court found that false statements published about Nonini on X had lowered his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, and awarded him KSh 3 million in damages.
That phrase, right-thinking members of society, is the legal test for defamation. A statement is defamatory when it would make ordinary, reasonable people think less of the person, or expose them to hatred, ridicule or contempt. To succeed, a claimant must show three things: that the statement was defamatory, that it referred to them, and that it was published to at least one other person. Because a written post is a permanent form, the law treats the harm as presumed, and the claimant does not have to prove a specific loss.
There is a complete defence, and it is the one that matters most here. Truth. If a statement is true, it is not actionable, however damaging. That is why the falsity of the statements was central. The remedy exists for false claims, not merely unwelcome ones.
Liability does not stop with the author. In law, anyone who publishes or republishes a defamatory statement to a third party can be sued, and that includes resharing, retweeting or repeating what someone else said. I was only sharing it is not a defence. Each republication is treated as a fresh publication.
The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, freedom of expression is protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, and social media has given ordinary people a voice they never had before. Large awards for online posts can make people afraid to speak, to criticise the powerful, or to raise matters of public concern, and public figures must accept a fair amount of hard scrutiny. On the other side, Article 33 is not unlimited. It does not protect a reputation-destroying falsehood, and the Constitution itself requires respect for the reputation and dignity of others under Articles 33 and 28. A lie that reaches thousands in seconds can do lasting harm, and a person whose name is damaged is entitled to a remedy. Where the line falls between robust, protected speech and an actionable falsehood is the question every post sits near.
Key takeaway: publishing a false and damaging statement about someone can cost you, and so can sharing one. Truth is a defence, verification is protection, and a repost is still a publication in the eyes of the law.
๐ Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on defamation and online speech.
This evening I visited the site of the collapsed building on 9th Street in Eastleigh. I was briefed on the rescue operations, thanked the rescuers and first responders for their tireless work, and consoled families whose loved ones are still missing. We stand with them, and we will not give up until everyone is accounted for.
There is some encouraging news. This afternoon a Chinese search-and-rescue team, Blue Sky Rescue (USAR), joined the effort with specialised equipment. They have already detected two people alive in the basement of the building.
The treatment of Kenyans seeking visas to Nigeria is unacceptable. While we extend visa-free entry to Nigerian citizens, this is not reciprocated - PS Korir Sing'oei
Kuna siku mlikua mnasema ati Kasmuel ni reincarnation ya Tom Mboya
Kumbe ni Tom-Mbwa
Nyani ni wale wale.
โ๏ธ
Clarification on social media handles associated with the former First Family.
Drama as Senator Edwin Sifuna almost fought with Governor Sakaja during the Senate disciplinary Committee! Jamaa wa dimples alijaribu kuleta makasiriko.
That's because William Ruto has entered the competition through a company that recently acquired Zuku and Wananchi Group.
Axian Telecom (operating as Yas Group) is owned by Hassanein Hiridjee and his family's Madagascar-based conglomerate, the Axian Group. Hassanein Hiridjee partnered with Rostam Aziz to acquire and expand major telecommunication and digital infrastructure assets in East Africa.
In Kenya, Ruto invited his friend Rostam Aziz and Pikap Kutit proxies to the table and they're currently expanding, modernizing and upgrading former Zuku infrastructure around the country, deploying ADSS cables. Just ask property developers in Nairobi about the guerilla war currently going on between internet service providers.
In Kenya, Ruto initiated Axian Telecom takeover of Zuku, through Axian AXIAN Telecom Fibre Ltd (Yas), which recently bought a 99.63% controlling equity stake in Wananchi Group Holdings Ltd, the previous owners of consumer broadband brand Zuku and enterprise link Simbanet
The Zuku acquisition enables Axian Telecom to deploy its broadband brand, "Yas," to unify its mobile, fintech, and fiber networks across Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi. They're planning to launch an enhanced, "competitive" offer in the Kenyan market in the coming future.
Safaricom has seen through this plan and had now fashioned this new business warfare using, ironically, Zuku' s former business model called the "the tripple play", which integrated TV, on-net Calls and fibre/ Internet package.
Does the name "Rostam Aziz" ring a bell?
He's the Tanzanian billionaire tycoon who owns MIC Tanzania PLC (which operated Tigo and Zantel through a strategic consortium with AXIAN Telecom and quickly rebranded as Yas Tanzania). Aziz serves as the Chairman of the local board.
President William Ruto personally commissioned Rostam Aziziโs multi-billion-shilling Taifa Gas plant in Mombasaโs Dongo Kundu Special Economic Zone in February 2023.
Rostam Azizi recently further expanded his influence in Kenya by acquiring a 54.08% controlling stake in the Nation Media Group through Taarifa Ltd.
And since you're still reading, presumably:
1. Ponder why there's continued harvesting of trees from Kenyan forests?
2. Why are some Internet service providers in Kenya no longer lease infrastructure from Kenya Power to run fiber optic cables on utility poles?
3. Why are some counties, like Nairobi, not interested in County Wayleave enforcement inv over wayleave fees and missing county approvals?
4. Who will eventually retire happily at the Intona Ranch in Kilgoris after vigorously promoting and budgeting public funds to launch and expand ICT Hubs and Last Mile Internet Connection under the Digital Superhighway program across the country?
And now that you're here, why did the Kenyan High Court nullify President William Rutoโs administration's sale of a 15% government stake in Safaricom Plc to Vodacom Group Ltd., ruling the transaction unconstitutional and ordering the shares returned to the state?
Need that by Monday. Today's Judgement...
The Parliamentary Committee on Energy, led by Vice Chairperson and Narok East MP Hon. Lemanken Aramat, CBS, has today visited the @KenGenKenya Olkaria to assess progress on the KenGen-Kaishan fertilizer project. #KenGenPartnerships #GreenEnergyKE ^EM
Rose Mbithe, two children, two police constables charged with murder of lawyer Mathew Kyalo Mbobu.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has today charged politician Rose Mbithe Mulwa, her two children, Chris Mulwa and Angela Mulwa, and two police constables with the murder of city lawyer Mathew Kyalo Mbobu.
The five accused persons were arraigned before the Kibera High Court, where they were charged with the murder of Mbobu.
The charge constitutes a second murder case against Rose Mbithe Mulwa and her two children, who are also facing charges in connection with the murder of Dr. Victoria Mutiso.
The accused persons appeared before Lady Justice Diana Kavedza and pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
The particulars of the charge allege that on 9th September 2025, at approximately 7:30 p.m., along Magadi Road in Karen, within Langโata Sub-County, Nairobi, the five accused persons, jointly with others not before the court, murdered Mathew Kyalo Mbobu.
The two police constables charged alongside the politician and her children are Julius Kipkoech Cheruiyot and Kennedy Kipkemoi Borboroi.
Until his death, Mbobu, served as a prominent advocate of the High Court, university lecturer and author.
Prosecution also informed the court of its intention to charge Police Inspector Kenneth Sang in connection with the murder.
Sang was arrested in Eldoret and subsequently presented before the Milimani Law Courts on Monday. The court authorised his continued detention for 14 days to allow the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) to complete its investigations.
The court directed the prosecution to file an affidavit opposing the accused personsโ release on bond and scheduled November 24, 2026, for the hearing of the bond application.
#HakiNaUsawa
CRACKING DOWN ON GOONISM: NYANZA REGION SECURITY TEAM STEPS UP FIGHT AGAINST VIOLENCE
Security agencies in Nyanza have intensified the crackdown on goonism, with 56 suspects arrested and charged in Homa Bay as authorities move to curb violence, intimidation and criminal activities threatening public safety and democratic processes.
Speaking to the media at his office, Nyanza Regional Criminal Investigations Officer (RCIO) Mr. George Mutonya, CP, warned individuals involved in lawlessness that they would face the law irrespective of who they are in the society. He reaffirmed the commitment of the Nyanza Regional Multi-Agency Intelligence Committee, led by the Regional Commissioner, to deal with politicians suspected of hiring goons, underscoring the importance of accountability and the rule of law.
According to Homa Bay Sub-County Criminal Investigations Officer (SCCIO) Mr. Peter Maina, SSP, recent arrests including that of gang leader Abdi Sebo is a testament of the region's resolve in dealing with goonism. The suspects have been charged with offences related to goonism, marking a significant step in ongoing efforts to address criminal activities in the region.
Alongside enforcement operations, the agencies have intensified public sensitization campaigns to educate communities on the dangers of goonism and encourage residents to reject violence, intimidation and criminal activities.
Security agencies maintain that public cooperation, intelligence-led investigations and sustained law enforcement efforts are essential to protecting lives and property and preserving peace across the Region.
Authorities have called on members of the public to support the ongoing efforts by reporting suspected criminal activity through the Directorate of Criminal Investigations' (DCI) toll-free hotline 0800 722 203 or via WhatsApp on 0709 570 000. Reports can be made anonymously.
Usiogope! Report crime. Help keep Nyanza safe.
โOur wives are innocent. They were silent partners in the business.โ
That was the plea by former Kiambu governor Ferdinand Waititu and businessman Charles Mbuthia Chege as they asked a Milimani anti-corruption court to spare their wives from punishment over a Sh588 million road tender scandal.
Waititu, who is already serving a 12-year prison sentence for corruption-related offences, asked the court to consider the punishment he and his co-accused had already undergone.
Read more: https://t.co/xg65fsb3aW
President of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Gatembu Kairu,
No doubt you have seen and read this telling tale of the tribulations of all of us, exemplified in the sufferings of Dr Duncan M OโKubasu.
Your predecessor had undertaken, subject to the already concluded recruitment of more Judges of the Court of Appeal, to have 5 2 B applications determined within 60 days of filing, and appeals within 12 months of filing. This has to implemented without any further delay. The @Kenyajudiciary and @ckanjama should ensure that this is done.
Testimony Enterprises Director Says He Is Serving 11 Years In Prison as Kiambu County Owes Him Sh117M
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
TรRK AMATรR
Seen from Turkey
Lahoree boy i love aunty and girl
Seen from Pakistan
Aneth Neftha
Seen from Korea
psiff 
Seen from Switzerland
valentine
Seen from France
JILBOBS MANIA
Seen from Indonesia
Chaserrey
Seen from United States
เนเธกเธฃเธต เธเธฑเธงเนเธซเธเน.
Seen from Thailand
casey
Seen from Indonesia
kurdhott
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.3M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.7M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers