A succession dispute within the family of former Attorney General James Boro Karugu has spilled into the criminal justice system after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) approved charges against six relatives and associates over what investigators describe as a falsified will and trust deed. Six family members of the late James Boro Karugu face criminal charges after allegations of a falsified will and trust deed, with the High Court reviewing a constitutional challenge.
Court papers filed in Constitutional Petition No. E027 of 2026 at the Milimani Law Courts show that Eric Mwaura Karugu and six co-petitioners moved to the High Court seeking to block their intended prosecution.
The decision to charge affects the 1st and 3rd to 7th Petitioners, while the 2nd Petitioner is not listed among those slated for prosecution.
In a detailed replying affidavit sworn by C.I. Duncan Maina of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the State sets out the chain of events that began shortly after Mr Karugu’s burial in November 2022 and culminated in forensic findings and a recommendation to prosecute. Will Reading That Triggered The Dispute According to investigators, the dispute began days after the late Mr Karugu was laid to rest at his Kiamara farm on 19 November 2022. On 24 November 2022, the 3rd Petitioner circulated an email to family members introducing herself “as having custody of the alleged Last Will and Testament of the Deceased” and invited beneficiaries to a will reading ceremony at Elysian Resort in Kiambu.
At the meeting held on 29 November 2022, the affidavit states that “the 3rd Petitioner/Applicant produced a sealed envelope, which she opened and produced therefrom documents alleged to be the Last Will and Testament of the Deceased, and a Settlement Trust Deed establishing the JBK Foundation.”
Those present were issued photocopies of the documents while the originals were handed to the 5th Petitioner, described as an alleged executor of the estate.
Soon after, Victoria Nyambura Karugu, a sibling to some of the petitioners and a beneficiary of the estate, questioned the authenticity of the documents.
The affidavit records that she “established several solid reasons to suspect the authenticity of the documents, hence holding them out, as falsified texts,” before lodging a formal complaint with police in June 2023. Forensic Findings The investigation, later assigned to the Economic and Commercial Crimes Unit, examined witness statements, email exchanges and the disputed documents themselves.
Among the issues identified were drafting irregularities, inconsistencies in witness narratives and questions surrounding signatures and pagination.
Certified copies of the will and trust deed were first examined by a forensic document examiner.
According to the affidavit, the examiner found that “the initials appearing as for the deceased testator and settlor are not authored by the deceased.”
After the originals were eventually made available for examination, the findings were reinforced.
The affidavit states that “Examination of the original questioned Will and Trust Deed confirmed that the initials… are not authored by the deceased.”
Investigators also discovered what they describe as deliberate concealment on the execution page. The affidavit notes that the page “bore some deliberate obscurity which effectively concealed the page number,” later revealed to be page seven. It goes on to state that “every single initial on both the impugned Will and Trust was found to be a forgery.”
The investigating officer concludes that the execution page “is from a different document, and was fraudulently attached to the text of the impugned Last Will and Testament… with a fraudulent intention.” Decision to Charge Following completion of investigations, the file was forwarded to the DPP for review.
The affidavit confirms that “recommendations were made to charge the 1st, and 3rd to 7th Petitioners.”
The six petitioners are therefore “subject to an impending criminal prosecution, for matters relating to the falsification of the Last Will and Testament of James Boro Karugu and the Settlement Trust Deed establishing the JBK Foundation.”
The DPP maintains that the decision to charge was made pursuant to Article 157 of the Constitution and in line with prosecutorial guidelines after review of the investigation file. Parallel Succession Proceedings The dispute is also before the Family Division in Succession Cause No. E916 of 2023, which was filed in July 2023 on the strength of the same will now under criminal investigation. Investigators note that the succession case was lodged after commencement of the probe and with knowledge of it.
An objection was filed in the succession proceedings informing the court of the ongoing criminal investigation. According to the affidavit, the succession court “has not to date, issued any orders to stop or interfere with the criminal investigative process.”
The State argues that forgery of a will “is a criminal offence under the Penal Code… and which is not subject to the Law of Succession Act,” and cites Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows civil and criminal proceedings to run concurrently. Constitutional Challenge In the constitutional petition now before the High Court, the applicants contend that the intended prosecution violates their rights under several constitutional provisions and amounts to abuse of power.
The investigating officer rejects that claim, stating that “the Petitioners/Applicants have not demonstrated with specificity, any action by the Respondents, that is in violation of their rights,” and adds that the discharge of duties by the DPP and DCI “is respectful of and consistent with the Constitution.”
The affidavit concludes that “the Petitioners’ case is unmerited and should be dismissed.”
The High Court must now determine whether the prosecution of six petitioners proceeds, a ruling that will shape the next phase of a dispute over the estate of one of Kenya’s most prominent legal figures. Below are the two court documents filed in Constitutional Petition No. E027 of 2026, comprising the Respondents’ Replying Affidavit and the annexed investigative materials relied upon by the DPP and DCI. View document View document