Victoria Nyambura Karugu has moved to the High Court seeking to participate in an ongoing constitutional petition in which several petitioners are challenging their intended prosecution over alleged forgery and fraud linked to the deceased’s will and company shares.
In her application, Victoria Nyambura Karugu argues she is the firstborn daughter of the deceased and a beneficiary of his estate.
She is also an objector in High Court Succession Cause No. E916 of 2023 relating to the estate. She argues that she has a direct stake in the outcome of the petition because she is the complainant in Criminal Case No. E644 of 2025, where some of the petitioners are charged with conspiracy to defraud her through the alleged fraudulent transfer of shares from Mathara Holdings Limited to Centurion Holdings Limited.
She further cites ongoing investigations under ECCU Inquiry File No. 47 of 2025 into the suspected forgery of the deceased’s Last Will and Testament and a Settlement Trust Deed dated April 2, 2014. According to her, investigations began in June 2023, before the succession proceedings were filed in July 2023.
Victoria accuses the petitioners of attempting to use the constitutional petition to block their arraignment, arguing that the law permits parallel civil and criminal proceedings.
She cites Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code and court decisions holding that the existence of a civil dispute is not, by itself, a basis to halt criminal proceedings.
In response to the petition, the State has also defended the prosecution process. The Attorney General argues that forgery is a criminal offence under the Penal Code and falls squarely within the criminal justice system. He maintains that the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to determine criminal culpability and that the existence of a succession cause does not bar criminal investigations.
The State further points to Article 157(6) of the Constitution, which grants the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) power to institute and undertake criminal proceedings, and Article 157(10), which insulates the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from direction or control by any person or authority.
According to the Attorney General, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate abuse of power, bad faith, or improper motive on the part of the prosecution.
Citing the decision in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General & 2 Others [2012] eKLR, the State argues that constitutional remedies are not available in the absence of a clear factual foundation showing violation of rights.
The Attorney General also relies on Republic v Directorate of Criminal Investigation Department & 4 Others Ex parte Edwin Harold Dayan Dande & 4 Others (2016), where the High Court held that courts should not usurp the constitutional mandate of investigative agencies, even where allegations may ultimately prove unmeritorious.
Additionally, in reference to Republic vs Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others Ex parte Simion Nyamanya Ondiba [2018] eKLR and Daniel Ndungu v Director of Public Prosecutions & Another (2013) eKLR, the State submits that an accused person should face trial and defend themselves, with the criminal justice system providing avenues for appeal if aggrieved by the outcome.
The State contends that judicial intervention should only arise where actions are manifestly unlawful or unfair and influenced by improper considerations.
It describes the petition as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process, arguing that it does not disclose a valid cause of action against the respondents.
The High Court is now expected to determine whether Victoria Nyambura Karugu will be enjoined as an Interested Party and whether the constitutional petition seeking to halt the criminal prosecutions will proceed or be dismissed.
