Suspects Rose Mbithe and her son Chris Mulwa at the dock/LEAH MUKANGAITwo people presented in court in connection with the ongoing investigation into the murder of renowned clinical psychologist and mental health researcher Dr Victoria Mutiso have challenged an alleged link to a family relationship dating back more than two decades.
The matter came up for hearing on Friday before Milimani Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo when the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) sought orders to detain the suspects, Rose Mbithe Mulwa, alias Rose Mbithe Ndetei, and her son Chris Mulwa, for 30 days to complete investigations.
The defence disputed any suggestion that Rose had a revenge motive arising from her divorce from Mutiso's husband more than two decades ago.
According to court documents, Rose was previously married to Mutiso’s husband before they divorced in 2001.
They had four children together, including Chris, who is the son of Mutiso’s husband from the previous marriage.
The DCI says the family connection is relevant to its investigations, particularly in relation to a property dispute involving Mutiso’s family.
Investigators say Rose had filed a case at the Machakos Law Courts concerning land parcel LR No. 1504/13, in which Mutiso was named as the third defendant.
The DCI alleges the dispute culminated in the eviction and demolition of properties belonging to Mutiso’s family, after which she allegedly began receiving threats to her life.
According to investigators, on July 7, Mutiso reported that two men riding a motorcycle had followed her along Ngong Road near Junction Mall, where a pillion passenger allegedly pointed a firearm at her and attempted to shoot her.
The DCI told the court that Mutiso allegedly identified the pillion passenger as Chris before her death. But the defence questioned why Chris was not arrested earlier if he had already been identified. “From July 7 to 31, why hadn’t they arrested him for that issue?” lawyer Cliff Ombeta asked.
He challenged the DCI to produce the statement in which Mutiso allegedly identified Chris, saying the defence needed to see the evidence supporting the claim.
Ombeta also disputed the investigators’ account of the property dispute, submitting that it was wrong to suggest the respondents had unlawfully evicted Mutiso from her property.
“The eviction was a court order lawfully supervised by the police and the case determined. The property belongs to the first respondent (Rose), not the deceased,” he submitted.
Lawyer Danstan Omari also questioned the relevance of the divorce to any possible motive for Mutiso’s killing.
“If she had a plan to kill, she could have killed immediately the divorce was present. It’s not now they can decide to revenge after 20 years,” Omari submitted.
The prosecution said the DCI was not claiming it already had sufficient evidence to charge the two suspects but was seeking time to complete its investigations.
“We have said allow us 30 days to conclude the investigation so that we get sufficient evidence to make a decision,” state counsel told the court.
The DCI says its probe goes beyond the former marriage and property dispute, with the suspected gunman and motorcycle rider believed to have carried out the fatal shooting still at large.
Investigators believe the two respondents may possess information about the identities and whereabouts of the people who carried out the killing.
The defence has disputed this, arguing that the respondents were arrested at their homes and had neither been found at the scene nor fled from investigators.
The DCI also says investigators recovered two spent cartridges and a bullet head from the scene, which were forwarded to the National Forensic Laboratory for ballistic analysis.
Several CCTV recordings have been recovered and are undergoing forensic examination, while investigators are analysing the respondents’ call-data records and a motor vehicle, which they say is an online taxi operating as an Uber.
Exhibits are also awaiting forensic analysis, while a post-mortem examination on Mutiso’s body is yet to be conducted.
The prosecution says the outstanding investigations are complex and time-sensitive and asked the court to allow the DCI to hold the suspects for 30 days.
Lawyers representing Mutiso’s family supported the request, citing the gravity of the offence and the possibility of interference with witnesses and evidence.
The defence opposed the continued detention, arguing that the suspects could be investigated while out of custody and could report to police regularly.
The lawyers also asked the court to release them on reasonable cash bail and bond terms.
The court is expected to deliver its decision on the custodial application on Monday, August 3, 2026.
Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo directed that, in the meantime, the two be remanded.
The magistrate further directed that should either suspect require medication, their family members may forward the medication through the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) of the respective police stations at Kilimani and Kileleshwa.
"They are also at liberty to contact their respective counsels without any limitation," the magistrate said
