Kaplan and Stratton lawyer Peter Gachuhi, Optimum Registrar’s Jane Kabiu and Lawyer Kimani Richu Temporarily Escape Arrest Through Frivolous Lawsuit Proceedings with Stunning Ruling

The dispute over the estate of Kenya’s former Attorney General, James Boro Karugu, has developed into a complicated legal battle involving forged inheritance documents, fraudulent company share transfers, interference with witnesses and threats to the safety of a complainant seeking to protect her family’s property.

What began as a dispute over the authenticity of a Will and Settlement Trust Deed has now spread across the Family, Constitutional and Criminal Courts, with individuals facing possible prosecution challenging the criminal process while the woman who reported the suspected offences struggles to secure a direct voice in the constitutional proceedings.

At the centre of the controversy are Kaplan & Stratton lawyer Peter Mbuthia Gachuhi, Eric Mwaura Karugu, Jane Wangechi Kabiu, lawyer William Kimani Richu, Eliud Mwaura Gatamba and Reverend Joshua Mwaura Kimani. The six were identified in investigations concerning the forgery of James Karugu’s Will and Settlement Trust Deed, documents whose authenticity is central to determining how the former Attorney General’s estate should be administered and distributed.

The Directorate of Criminal Investigations examined the disputed documents under ECCU Inquiry File No. 47/2025. Following those investigations, the Director of Public Prosecutions approved charges that included forgery of a Will, forgery, uttering a false document and conspiracy to defraud.

In December 2025, the DCI summoned the suspects for processing ahead of their anticipated arrest and arraignment. However, instead of the matter proceeding directly to criminal court, the proposed prosecution became the subject of Constitutional Petition E027 of 2026, in which the petitioners are seeking orders to restrain the State from prosecuting them.

Their argument is that the disputed Will is already being examined by the Family Division in Succession Cause E916 of 2023 and that allowing criminal proceedings to run alongside the succession dispute could result in conflicting judicial findings. They further contend that pursuing prosecution under those circumstances would amount to an abuse of prosecutorial authority.

The constitutional challenge has consequently introduced another legal question into an already contested inheritance dispute: whether the existence of succession proceedings should prevent the State from pursuing criminal charges arising from the fabrication or use of documents connected to that succession.

The Attorney General has firmly opposed the petitioners’ position. In Grounds of Opposition filed on February 17, 2026, the State described their application as misconceived and an abuse of the court process, arguing that they had failed to demonstrate any violation of constitutional rights, illegality or improper motive on the part of the DCI or DPP.

The Attorney General’s position rests on a distinction between the responsibilities of the Family Court and those of the criminal justice system. While the Family Court can determine the validity of a Will for succession purposes, it does not exercise criminal jurisdiction to determine whether an individual committed forgery or related offences. The State also relies on Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows civil and criminal proceedings arising from the same circumstances to proceed concurrently.

In other words, the fact that a document is being challenged in a succession case does not, by itself, prevent investigators from examining whether criminal offences were committed in its preparation or use. The State maintains that constitutional protections should not be used to obstruct lawful investigations and prosecutions unless there is evidence that the relevant powers have been exercised unlawfully or abusively.

While that legal contest continues, the complainant whose report triggered the criminal investigations has encountered a significant procedural setback of her own.

On September 30, 2026, Justice Gregory Mutai dismissed Victoria’s application to join Constitutional Petition E027 of 2026 as an Interested Party. Victoria had sought to participate because her complaint formed the basis of the investigation now being challenged and because the outcome of the petition could affect whether the allegations she reported proceed to prosecution.

The petitioners opposed her involvement, arguing that the DPP and DCI were already representing the interests relevant to the criminal proceedings. They also maintained that allowing her to participate would risk turning the constitutional petition into another forum for litigating the underlying succession dispute.

Justice Mutai accepted the objection and found that Victoria had not satisfied the legal requirements for joinder as an Interested Party.

For Victoria, the ruling creates a difficult situation. The individuals challenging their proposed prosecution remain able to advance their arguments before the Constitutional Court, while she cannot independently respond in those proceedings to claims that she used the criminal justice system to advance her interests in the inheritance dispute. She maintains that property belonging to her late parents is being claimed by people she considers to have no legitimate entitlement to it, and she intends to appeal the decision denying her participation.

The wider controversy becomes even more serious when considered alongside Criminal Case E644 of 2025, a separate but related prosecution involving Jane Kabiu, Eric Mwaura Karugu and Benjamin Githara Karugu.

In that case, the three are accused of offences arising from the fraudulent transfer of Victoria’s shares in Mathara Holdings Limited to Centurion Holdings Limited. The charges include conspiracy to defraud, forgery, uttering a false document and giving false information to a public officer.

The prosecution concerns the ownership and control of corporate interests connected to the broader family property dispute. Unlike the constitutional petition challenging the proposed prosecution over the Will and Settlement Trust Deed, this matter has already reached the criminal court, where the accused were granted cash bail of KSh700,000 each in December 2025, together with additional conditions.

The accused subsequently applied for those conditions to be reduced. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions strongly opposed the request, arguing that developments after the accused were charged justified retaining, or potentially strengthening, the existing restrictions.

The prosecution’s objections extend beyond the original allegations concerning the transfer of company shares. Its written submissions raise concerns about possible interference with witnesses, misconduct involving a police officer and an attempt to seize a firearm from a security officer protecting Victoria.

One of the individuals mentioned in the submissions is Brenda Irungu, a former office secretary associated with Mathara Holdings Limited and described in the material as a hostile witness. The prosecution refers to interference involving her, raising concerns about whether individuals expected to provide evidence in the criminal proceedings can do so without pressure or improper influence.

The dispute over Brenda’s position is particularly sensitive because of her former role at the company and the possibility that her knowledge of its records and operations could be relevant to the case. Concerns have been raised that Eric Mwaura Karugu and Jane Kabiu want her returned to her former desk at Mathara Holdings, a development Victoria fears could affect the handling of witnesses or company information.

The submissions also refer to the conduct of Chief Inspector John Marubu, an officer associated with Kanunga Police Station, whose actions became the subject of a complaint lodged by Victoria.

An Internal Affairs Unit letter dated July 16, 2026, confirms that her complaint against the officer was investigated and that the Inspector General of Police concurred with recommendations for disciplinary action.

Victoria suspects that the officer’s conduct was connected to attempts to assist the accused in the wider dispute, including the controversy surrounding Brenda Irungu.

The prosecution nevertheless considers the police misconduct developments relevant to the question of whether the criminal process is vulnerable to interference. Where a dispute involves contested corporate records, witnesses with knowledge of company affairs and improper police involvement, the independence of investigations and the protection of evidence become matters requiring close judicial scrutiny.

According to the ODPP’s submissions opposing the reduction of bail conditions, Benjamin made repeated attempts to seize a firearm from the officer while the officer was protecting Victoria. The reported incident is said to have occurred in the presence of other people who could also have been endangered had the weapon discharged during the confrontation.

The seriousness of such cannot be understated. An attempt to wrest a firearm from an armed protection officer creates an immediate risk not only to the person being protected but also to the officer, bystanders and anyone nearby. Even an accidental discharge during a struggle could have grave consequences.

Victoria considers the reported incident and the wider interference evidence of serious threats to her safety. The prosecution has also invoked the Witness Protection Act in addressing concerns about her security and the protection of those connected to the proceedings.

The accused, through their legal representation, have disputed the prosecution’s allegations and opposed the suggestion that the incidents justify maintaining stringent bail conditions. Victoria, however, considers the response to her safety concerns dismissive, particularly given the alleged firearm incident and the fears she has expressed about intimidation.

The ODPP has further cited the accused persons’ failure to attend two consecutive court mentions without leave. That complaint adds another dimension to the bail dispute because attendance in court and compliance with conditions imposed upon release are among the matters a court may consider when deciding whether existing bail terms remain appropriate.

Another point of disagreement concerns the financial value of the disputed shares. The accused have argued that their bail conditions are disproportionate because the share at the centre of the transfer dispute carried a nominal value of only KSh100.

The prosecution rejects that argument, maintaining that the wrongdoing cannot be measured simply by the face value of one share. Its case concerns the alleged fraudulent alteration of corporate ownership and proprietary rights, matters that may carry consequences far beyond the nominal amount recorded against an individual share.

That distinction is important in a case involving control of company interests. A share with a nominal value of KSh100 may carry voting, ownership or other corporate rights, depending on the company’s structure and governing documents. The prosecution’s position is that the interference with those rights, rather than the printed value of the share alone, should inform the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the charges.

Taken together, the proceedings reveal how a dispute over inheritance documents has developed into several overlapping legal battles. In the succession case, the validity of the disputed Will remains contested. In the constitutional petition, the proposed accused are challenging the State’s authority to prosecute them while the succession dispute remains unresolved. In the separate criminal case, three accused persons are defending charges connected to an alleged fraudulent share transfer while contesting the conditions of their release.

For Victoria, the central concern is no longer limited to whether the estate and company records accurately reflect her family’s ownership interests. She is also questioning whether the legal process can move forward without interference, whether witnesses will be protected and whether the institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting the allegations can carry out their duties effectively.

The Attorney General, DPP and DCI, meanwhile, face a legal challenge that directly concerns the boundaries of their investigative and prosecutorial authority. The constitutional petition requires the court to determine whether the proposed criminal proceedings represent a lawful exercise of State power or whether the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient grounds for judicial intervention.

What makes the dispute particularly troubling is the combination of its unresolved allegations and the number of institutions now involved. A former Attorney General’s estate is at the centre of contested inheritance documents, a proposed forgery prosecution is being challenged constitutionally, a separate corporate ownership case has generated allegations of witness interference, and a police misconduct complaint has already resulted in recommendations for disciplinary action.

The unanswered questions are substantial.

Will the constitutional challenge allow the proposed forgery charges to proceed, or will the court find grounds to intervene?

Can the witnesses in the share transfer case participate without interference? What action will follow the Internal Affairs Unit’s findings concerning Chief Inspector Marubu?

And how will the criminal court assess the firearm incident, missed court appearances and other matters raised in opposition to the accused persons’ request for reduced bail conditions?