By Andrew Kariuki

The High Court has granted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) additional time to complete a mental assessment for police officer Godwin Mwashuke Mjomba, delaying plea taking in a murder case linked to a fatal shooting in Nairobi’s Mukuru area.

Mjomba is under investigation in connection with the death of Shukri Adan Ibrahim Issaka.

The matter came up before Justice Martin Muya at the Makadara High Court on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, where the prosecution sought more time to comply with court orders requiring a mental evaluation of the suspect before he can take plea.

The State informed the court that the assessment had not been conducted as earlier directed because of a backlog of cases at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH), where such examinations are ordinarily carried out.

“My lord, we are hoping all the outstanding mental assessment reports will be done within the next seven days, and in the circumstances, I was praying for an extension of time so that the matter can be mentioned again formally at a later date,” the prosecution submitted.

The court heard that the Office of the DPP had already escalated the matter to ensure that the assessment is completed within a week to determine whether the suspect is fit to stand trial on murder charges.

Justice Muya, however, questioned the delay, asking why the accused had not been taken to alternative facilities such as Mathare National Teaching and Referral Hospital or any other hospital capable of conducting the assessment.

In response, the prosecution told the court that efforts were underway to explore other options, including Mama Lucy Hospital, noting that logistical challenges had affected the use of some facilities.

“We had a meeting with the person in charge of the remand home. We are also exploring whether we can take some of them to Mama Lucy for the same assessment. There is a bit of a logistic hitch when it comes to Mathare,” the prosecutor explained.

The State assured the court that it would complete all pending mental assessments within the next seven days.

“My lord, we undertake that we will have done it in the next one week; all the pending files will be worked on,” the prosecution added.

The case will now be mentioned at a later date to confirm whether the assessment has been completed and to give further directions on the plea taking.

By Andrew Kariuki

The ongoing murder trial of former police officer Ahmed Rashid was on Thursday adjourned after two key prosecution witnesses failed to present crucial evidence before the High Court in Nairobi.

The case, which is being heard by Justice Diana Mochache, had been scheduled to proceed with testimony from an officer attached to the Communications Authority of Kenya.

The witness was expected to produce communication data allegedly linking Rashid to the fatal shooting of Jamal Mohammed and Mohammed Dahir Kheri in Eastleigh.

However, the prosecution told the court that the witness could not be reached despite being served with summons.

“Despite being served with summons to attend court today, the officer is not picking calls or responding to messages,” State Counsel Angela Fuchacha told the court, adding that the prosecution was unable to proceed without the testimony.

A second witness, a former chief armourer at Pangani Police Station, also failed to testify effectively after appearing in court without the firearms which were said to be key exhibits in the case.

The prosecution argued that the absence of the exhibits would significantly weaken their case.

“The armourer did not come with the firearms that are key exhibits in this matter.

Proceeding without the exhibits would render our case weak. We therefore seek an adjournment,” Fuchacha said.

The request for an adjournment was strongly opposed by defence counsel Danstan Omari, who accused the prosecution of deliberately delaying the proceedings.

“This is a tactical move to derail and prolong this trial,” Omari submitted.

“My client has been attending court diligently and the prosecution cannot continue to hold him hostage to their unpreparedness.”
Omari further argued that external influence by civil society organisations had contributed to the prolonged delays in the case.

After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Mochache adjourned the matter and directed that the hearing will proceed on June 24 and 25, when the court is expected to take further evidence.

Ahmed Rashid, a former member of the Starehe Special Police Initiative and Vigilance Unit, commonly referred to as the “Pangani Six,” is facing murder charges in connection with the shooting of Jamal Mohammed and Mohammed Dahir Kheri.

The incident is said to have occurred on March 31, 2017, outside Amal Shopping Complex in Eastleigh, Nairobi.

The case has experienced multiple delays over the years, with the latest adjournment adding to concerns over the pace of the proceedings.

By Andrew Kariuki

A Nairobi court has declined to close proceedings in a civil dispute involving the Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) after the Kenyan ambassador to Cuba Evelyne Mwenda Karisa, who is the plaintiff, opposed the move, arguing that the respondent had failed to provide proof of an alleged refund.

The matter, Everlyne Mwenda Karisa vs Kenya Commercial Bank, came up for mention before Senior Principal Magistrate Lucy Njora for confirmation of settlement and closure of the file.

The respondent informed the court that the dispute had been settled, stating that a refund had been made to the plaintiff’s account.

However, counsel for the plaintiff, Lawyer Danstan Omari, opposed the closure of the file, telling the court that no documentary evidence had been produced to support the claim that the funds had been refunded.

The plaintiff maintains that a total of Ksh 779,603 remains in dispute, while the respondent claims to have refunded Ksh 413,728.

“The respondent has not placed before this Honourable Court any documentary proof to demonstrate that the alleged refund was made to our client’s account,” the counsel of the Plaintiff submitted.

The respondent has since filed a response dated January 27, 2026, maintaining that the partial refund had already been effected.

In light of the dispute over the alleged payment, the court declined to close the file and instead directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions.

Each party has been granted seven days to file and exchange their submissions.

The court is expected to deliver its ruling on March 20, 2026.