Court battles for the Mulwa family continue following the arrest of Angela Mulwa, who was presented at Mavoko Law Courts over the suspected murder of Dr. Victoria Mutiso, alongside land fraud and property damage charges.
This development follows the 21-day detention of her mother, Rose Mulwa and brother, Chris Mulwa, in connection with the same death.
Appearing at Mavoko Law Courts on 3rd July 2026, the state sought for 21 days to detain Angela Mulwa together with other suspect to allow detectives to complete investigations into an alleged fraudulent land transaction, forcible eviction, theft of motor vehicles, malicious damage to property and their suspected links to the murder of the late Dr. Victoria Mutiso.
Investigators told the court that the matter stems from a dispute over Land Parcel No. 1504 in Syokimau, where they are examining allegations of forged land ownership documents, an allegedly unlawful eviction and the theft of several motor vehicles during the exercise.
The investigating officer said detectives recovered one of the vehicles a Range Rover Sport registration KDU 799Y from the residence of the first respondent, Angela Mulwa, on August 1, 2026.
The vehicle was allegedly in the possession of Angela together with the second respondent, James Stone. Police are also tracing other vehicles allegedly taken during the eviction, including a Toyota Pickup registration KAK 225K, Toyota Prado KBT 935T and Toyota Corolla KAN 506B.
The prosecution argued that investigations remain incomplete and require forensic examination of mobile phones, CCTV footage, communication records, land registry documents and digital evidence.
Detectives also told the court they are working to establish the ownership of the disputed property, determine how the respondents came into possession of the recovered vehicle and verify whether the eviction was carried out pursuant to valid court orders.
According to investigators, the matter has evolved beyond a property dispute and now overlaps with an active homicide investigation being handled by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations’ Homicide Unit.
Detectives believe evidence gathered in the land dispute could help establish the circumstances surrounding the murder of Dr. Victoria Mutiso, whose death is believed to be connected to the contested property and events surrounding the eviction.
The State further argued that releasing the respondents at this stage could interfere with ongoing investigations, witnesses and efforts to recover the remaining vehicles and other property allegedly stolen during the eviction.
Prosecutors maintained that the complexity of the investigations warrants custodial detention before a decision is made on possible criminal charges.The application was, however, vigorously opposed by Senior Counsel Danstan Omari and Cliff Ombeta, who lead the defence team.
The defence dismissed the application as an abuse of the court process and a “public relations exercise,” arguing that investigators were seeking to detain the respondents while searching for evidence instead of presenting evidence to justify continued detention.
Counsel submitted that ownership of the disputed land had already been conclusively determined by a competent court, which issued eviction orders that were lawfully executed under police supervision.
They argued that investigators were improperly attempting to reopen issues that had already been settled by the courts.
The defence further argued that police are already in possession of the respondents’ mobile phones and therefore do not require their continued detention to obtain communication records.
They also challenged the prosecution’s reliance on CCTV footage, saying investigators had neither identified the cameras nor demonstrated how the respondents could interfere with evidence controlled by third parties.
Omari and Ombeta also submitted that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate any attempt by the respondents to interfere with witnesses or obstruct investigations, insisting that allegations of complexity, public interest or ongoing investigations alone do not amount to compelling reasons to curtail constitutional rights.
The defence further noted that the first respondent, Angela Muluwa, is an advocate of the High Court with over 26 years of legal practice, arguing that her continued detention would prejudice her professional obligations and infringe on her constitutional rights.
They also accused the State of forum shopping, saying related proceedings are already pending before the Milimani Law Courts and that filing a parallel application before the Mavoko court amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.
They urged the court to dismiss the State’s application and instead release both respondents on reasonable bond terms, subject to conditions requiring them to cooperate with investigators whenever required.
The court is expected to determine whether the prosecution has established compelling reasons to continue detaining the two suspects for the requested 21 days.
