British Lawyer Granted Reprieve as High Court Suspends Forgery Charges in Sh100 Million Karen Land Case
A British lawyer, Guy Elms Spencer, has been granted temporary relief in a high-profile Sh100 million Karen land forgery case after the High Court issued an interim order suspending his scheduled plea-taking. The decision, made by Justice Martin Muya, halts the prosecution from charging Spencer with forgery until his review application is heard on October 13, 2025.
The case stems from a contentious legal battle over a disputed will, with Spencer facing allegations of forgery related to a valuable property in Nairobi's affluent Karen area. The lawyer sought intervention from the High Court after Milimani Senior Principal Magistrate Benmark Ekhubi rejected a request by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Renson Ingonga, to withdraw the charges against him. The DPP had moved to terminate the case, citing reasons that were not disclosed in court. However, Magistrate Ekhubi ruled that the withdrawal could not proceed without prior consultation with the complainant, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal protocols.
In his application to the High Court, Spencer argued that the magistrate's decision was fundamentally flawed, describing it as irrational and contrary to established legal precedent. He contended that the trial court relied on irrelevant considerations and overlooked critical facts, particularly a prior High Court ruling that had cleared him of similar forgery allegations. Spencer pointed to a June 19, 2025, judgment in Milimani HCF P&A No. 955 of 2023, where the High Court dismissed claims by the complainant and upheld the validity of the will at the center of the dispute.
Spencer further argued that proceeding with the forgery charges would constitute double jeopardy, violating his constitutional rights to equality before the law and a fair trial under Articles 27 and 50(1) and (2) of the Kenyan Constitution. He asserted that the magistrate's insistence on plea-taking, despite acknowledging a prior High Court ruling on the same matter, represented a misdirection of the law and a miscarriage of justice.
The lower court's decision to push forward with the case came after Magistrate Ekhubi noted that this was the second attempt by the DPP to withdraw or discontinue the charges against Spencer. The magistrate raised concerns about the consistency of the DPP's approach, stressing that proper consultation with investigators and victims is required under the Guidelines on the Decision to Charge (2019) before such actions can be taken. Ekhubi also maintained that the existence of a related civil or succession dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings, asserting that both processes can run concurrently.
The High Court's interim order provides Spencer with a temporary reprieve as he awaits the hearing of his review application on October 13, 2025. The outcome of this hearing will determine whether the forgery charges against him will proceed or be permanently withdrawn, potentially setting a significant precedent in the handling of similar cases involving overlapping civil and criminal disputes