Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Lawyer denies Sh8.2 million fraud charge

Nanyuki-based lawyer Robert Githaiga Mathenge who was charged with fraudulently obtaining Sh8.2 million from a client.  

Photo credit: Mwangi Ndirangu | Nation Media Group

A Nanyuki-based lawyer was arraigned on Wednesday on charges of fraudulently obtaining Sh8.2 million from his client.

Mr Robert Githaiga Mathenge appeared before Principal Magistrate Ben Mararo and denied the charges. He was released on a Sh5 million bond and a surety, with an alternative cash bail of Sh3 million.

The charge sheet indicates that the lawyer faces four counts related to forgery and obtaining money by false pretence from Mr Charles Njung’e Nduati.

The offences were allegedly committed between April and May this year and include forgery with intent to defraud, making a false document and uttering a false document, which was a sale agreement for two houses in Nanyuki, Laikipia County.

He is accused that on April 7 in Nanyuki, with the intent to defraud, he obtained Sh8.2 million from Mr Nduati by falsely pretending that he was in a position to sell him the two houses, the property of Benezeli Holdings Limited.

Another charge stated that he forged a sales agreement for the sale of a property in Nanyuki while purporting it to be a sales agreement from Benezeli Holdings.

Settled out of court

The lawyer, who was not represented when he appeared in court, applied to have the matter settled out of court, arguing that as a lawyer, he is required to carry out his duties in strict adherence to professional ethics.

He also asked the court to order to unfreeze his bank account.

But the magistrate told him that such a request should be made at the court that issued the orders.

The court ruled that the accused and the complainant were at liberty to settle the matter on their own terms.

The case will be mentioned on July 7, and a hearing was scheduled for September 1.