Deputy President Kithure Kindiki’s name came up in skirmishes following a court ruling over property struggle at Land Reference Number 10199/10 Karen.
In a ruling made on Friday, 21 March 2025 on miscellaneous application No. E598 of 2024 at the Milimani courts, skirmishes ensued leading to exchange of death threats in front of police officers from Hardy Police Station.
Vennesa Gikonyo, the estranged wife to Thungutha Murage, is fighting to reclaim what she claims to be her property, acquired jointly with Thungutha Murage before they separated.
She claims her estranged husband and the current tenant have been invoking the name of DP Kithure Kindiki to intimidate her.
Kurunzi News understands that Mary Venessa sought for help from former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko, who has vowed to do “everything I can to ensure justice must be served to the single mother”. Sonko confirms his involvement in the case, saying “it is unfair and even immoral that someone powerful is trying to fight an innocent seeking justice”.
When she showed up she attempted to evict the tenant against court orders which only granted her access to the property.
In the ensuing melee the tenant, Eric Munene, attempted to pull out his gun but was restrained by police officers form Karen police station
Efforts to get comments from Thungutha Murage were futile as his phone went unanswered but Kurunzi understands that he plans to appeal the ruling tomorrow
Vannesa “I hear this person staying here saying he is from Tharaka Nithi. I was married in Tharaka Nithi but I am out of that marriage this is my house. I want them out they way they kicked out my 5 year old daughter early in the morning. People cannot say they know the Deputy President of this Country. This is my house I hear Kindiki is involved but this is my house.”
Eric Munene(tenant): “ There is no eviction order here. Uko lucky juu ya yule amekusaidia ukaingia juu sikuweko”
The court ruling, delivered by Chief Magistrate Lucy Ambasi, has laid bare a scandalous plot to unlawfully evict Mary Waithera Gikonyo, Thungutha’s former wife, from their Karen matrimonial home.
The ruling not only vindicates Gikonyo but also raises serious questions about the integrity of Kenya’s judicial process and the lengths to which the powerful will go to manipulate it.
The case, which has been described as a “textbook example of judicial fraud,” revolves around a prime property in Karen, Land Reference Number 10199/10, which Gikonyo and Thungutha acquired during their marriage. The couple’s union was dissolved on 31 May 2024, but the fallout from their separation has been anything but amicable.
Gikonyo, a mother of two, found herself and her children forcibly evicted from their home on 24 April 2024, following a court order obtained by Thungutha and his associates under dubious circumstances.
In her ruling, Chief Magistrate Ambasi condemned the actions of Thungutha and his co-respondents, George Gitonga Muchiri (an auctioneer) and Real Development Company Limited (the alleged landlord).
The court found that the eviction order was obtained through “fraudulent, dubious, and illegal means,” with the respondents colluding to misrepresent facts and mislead the court.
“The orders issued on 24 April 2024 were flagrantly abused to cause the eviction of the Applicant and her children,” the ruling stated, adding that this was a “contumelious disregard and disobedience of the express orders of this court.”
The court’s decision to review and set aside the eviction order was based on overwhelming evidence presented by Gikonyo, who argued that she had been residing on the property as a freehold owner, not a tenant, and that the demand for rent arrears—totaling KSh4,550,000—was never served upon her.
“The Applicant had been residing on the suit premises, which was a freehold property and thus not subject to rent or control of a landlord,” the ruling noted. Gikonyo further alleged that Thungutha had informed her the property was scheduled for demolition on 10 June 2024, a claim that raised suspicions of ulterior motives.
Thungutha, however, vehemently opposed Gikonyo’s application, accusing her of “material non-disclosure, falsehoods, and misleading the court.”
In a replying affidavit filed on 3 July 2024, he argued that Gikonyo had no legal claim to the property, as she had not contributed to its acquisition and was not listed on the title deed.
He also claimed that Gikonyo had two children with other men, a statement the court dismissed as irrelevant and inflammatory. “The 3rd Respondent’s allegations are mere hearsay, speculative, and not supported by valid evidence,” the ruling stated.
The court’s decision to grant Gikonyo’s application was heavily influenced by the principles of justice and fairness enshrined in Kenya’s Constitution. Article 159(2) and Article 40(1), which guarantee the right to a fair hearing and the protection of property rights, were central to the ruling.
“The Applicant has demonstrated on a balance of probability that she is entitled to the prayers sought,” Chief Magistrate Ambasi declared, adding that the court’s earlier orders had been “misused to perpetrate a grave injustice.”
The ruling also highlighted the role of George Gitonga Muchiri, the auctioneer, who was accused of acting in collusion with Thungutha to unlawfully remove Gikonyo’s household goods.
The court ordered Muchiri and Real Development Company Limited to account for and restore all the goods they had carted away, at their own cost.
“The Respondents must provide an itemized list of all the goods proclaimed and carted away,” the ruling stated, underscoring the seriousness of the breach.
Legal experts have hailed the ruling as a landmark decision that reaffirms the judiciary’s role as a guardian of justice.
“This case is a stark reminder that the courts will not tolerate abuse of process or manipulation by powerful individuals,” said lawyer Kamau Mwangi, who represented Gikonyo.
“The ruling sends a clear message that no one is above the law.”
However, the scandal has also raised troubling questions about the integrity of Kenya’s legal system. The fact that a senior government official like Thungutha could allegedly manipulate court processes to dispossess his former wife of her home has sparked outrage among the public.
“This is not just a personal dispute; it’s a test of our judiciary’s independence,” said political analyst Njeri Kinyua. “If someone in Thungutha’s position can abuse the system, what hope do ordinary citizens have?”
The case has also drawn attention to the broader issue of property rights in Kenya, particularly for women. Gikonyo’s plight is emblematic of the challenges many women face in asserting their rights to matrimonial property, especially in the face of powerful and well-connected adversaries.
“This ruling is a victory not just for Mary Waithera Gikonyo, but for all women fighting for their rightful share of matrimonial property,” said women’s rights activist Wanjiku Mwangi.
As the dust settles on this high-profile case, the spotlight remains firmly on Ignatius Murage Thungutha and his associates. The court’s decision to vacate the eviction order and restore Gikonyo’s access to her home is a significant victory, but the battle is far from over.
With a separate suit on the division of matrimonial property pending before the High Court, the saga is likely to continue unfolding in the coming months.
For now, however, Mary Waithera Gikonyo can take solace in the fact that justice, though delayed, has not been denied.
“The interests of justice demand that the Applicant’s rights be protected,” said Chief Magistrate Ambasi.
In a case marked by intrigue, betrayal, and abuse of power, the court’s ruling stands as a beacon of hope for those who believe in the rule of law.
