Court declines to stay robbery proceedings in ex-MP Muchai case

The High Court has declined to stay criminal proceedings in the robbery with violence case linked to the murder of former Kabete MP George Muchai.

The move effectively allows the matter to move toward a final judgment expected on Friday, January 30, 2026, in the Chief Magistrate’s court.

Yego seeks golden continental exit in Accra showpiece Athletics

TOUCHLINE COLUMN: Sh42.4m storm exposes fragile foundations of Kenyan football governance Football

In a ruling delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi on Wednesday, the court rejected an application by several of the accused seeking to halt the ongoing proceedings.

The accused had approached the court through their lawyers, arguing that the charge sheets drawn by police officers violated constitutional provisions and that their prosecution under Sections 295, 296, and 297 of the Penal Code was unlawful.

They had argued that, given the unconstitutionality of the provisions, the proceedings should be stayed.

“My clients came to stay prosecution before the Magistrate's Court. They seek a pronouncement on the matters that the charge sheet drawn by police officers violates the constitution,” they submitted.

Justice Mugambi, however, held that the court was functus officio with respect to the issues raised and declined to stay the proceedings, emphasising that the petitioners’ constitutional arguments could not halt ongoing trials.

“Issuing a blanket order that immediately prohibits all trials with violence or ordering the release would be impractical,” he said, noting the need to balance public safety with the rights of the accused.

The case centres on the violent robbery of two women, Gladys Waithera and Irene Muthoni, which allegedly occurred on the same night former MP George Muchai, his two bodyguards, Samuel Kailikia and Samuel Matanta, and his driver, Stephen Wambugu, were killed on February 7, 2015, along Kenyatta Avenue in Nairobi.

The accused, including Eric Isabwa, Raphael Kimani, Mustapha Kimani, Stephen Astiva, Jane Wanjiru, Margaret Njeri, and Simon Wambugu, face multiple counts of robbery with violence involving six other victims.

All have denied the charges.

The matter is currently before Milimani Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina.

The prosecution has since presented several witnesses, and the magistrates’ court found that the seven accused have a case to answer.

In his analysis, Justice Mugambi considered whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, including arguments based on the doctrine of subjudice and exhaustion of alternative remedies.

The court noted that the petition was not sub judice (the matter was not already under consideration in another court) and that claims that the matter should have been taken to Parliament had failed.

But the judge further emphasised that Sections 295–297 of the Penal Code, though declared unconstitutional in a prior ruling (Joseph Kahinga & 11 Others v Attorney General), had continued to be relied upon by the State.

“The Respondents have persisted in charging the petitioners despite unconstitutional provisions of the Penal Code. Acting to charge individuals under provisions found unconstitutional violates the fair rights of persons,” the judge observed.

“Accused persons have a right to a fair trial. Pursuing unconstitutional provisions is an abuse of State powers.”

The petitioners argued that their constitutional rights had been violated, with some reportedly held in custody for up to 11 years.

While the High Court recognised these rights violations, it concluded that a blanket order halting the proceedings or releasing all accused would be inappropriate, given the potential public harm.

“It would not be unfair or inappropriate to issue a blanket order prohibiting all trials, prosecutions, or releases of persons charged with robbery with violence,” the court ruled, noting that such a move would create confusion and undermine public safety.

He brought in the principle of functus officio, which means that a court or judge has already delivered a final decision on a matter and therefore cannot revisit or alter it, noting that the issues raised by the petitioners had already been addressed in the just-concluded ruling.

The orders, however, noted that by June 30, 2027, any pending or fresh prosecutions under the affected sections should stand quashed, unless there is another valid law justifying their continuation

The ruling clears the way for the magistrates’ court to deliver a verdict on the robbery with violence charges on January 30, 2026, marking a significant step in the long-running legal saga surrounding the murder of George Muchai and the associated violent robberies.