A Briton and two Kenyans have been charged in court in a sexual offense case at the Makadara Law Courts.
The accused Kenneth Munro and Sammy Chege were said to have committed the offense on December 10, 2025 against A.K.
According to the complaint, the three men were having refreshments at a social establishment on the fateful evening when he later entered his car, only for Chegge and Munro to follow him and demand carnal knowledge.
The duo allegedly threatened to kill him and his entire family if he did not comply with their demands. They further promised to wire KSh 5 million to his account if he “made them happy.”
Sensing danger, the complainant tricked the two men by offering to buy them more beer from inside the club.
However, before he could exit the vehicle, they allegedly unzipped his trousers and indecently touched him. He was eventually allowed to leave.
The complainant immediately alerted a bouncer at the club, explaining that he was escaping the two men who had remained in his car. He requested to be placed in safe custody.
Shortly afterwards, Chegge and Munro emerged from the vehicle inquiring about his whereabouts and were informed that he had already left in an Uber.
The two suspects then boarded their own Uber and hurriedly departed the scene.
On February 12, 2026, the complainant reported the incident at Kahawa West Police Station under OB 49/12/02/2026.
Three days later, Munro presented himself at Kahawa Police Station, where he was arrested and released on a police cash bail of KSh 100,000.
He was instructed to appear at Makadara Law Courts on March 5, 2026, to face charges but failed to do so, citing travel outside the country.
Kennedy Murunga and Wycliffe Ndege, the complainant’s lawyers urged the court to compel the accused to tender in his travel documents citing he was a flight risk.
“The accused person was in business partnership with with my client while Chege was the employee. Some of the witnesses may be his (Munroe) employees. Even as we speak, there is room for interference,” Murunga submitted.
Counsel for the state, Catherine Ngari, opposed the accused’s release on bond, arguing that compelling reasons existed under Article 49 of the Constitution of Kenya, which provides that while bail is a constitutional right, it is not absolute since the court at it’s own discretion may deny it where the accused is a flight risk, likely to interfere with witnesses, or where the offence is serious.
Your Honour, court records indicate that the accused was scheduled to take plea on March 30. However, while out on police bail of KSh 100,000, he boarded a flight and left the jurisdiction of the court without leave, thereby frustrating the administration of justice,” Ms Catherine stated.
She added that the accused’s prior conduct demonstrated his capacity to travel without lawful authority, raising the likelihood that he might abscond again if granted bond.
In response, defense counsel dismissed the prosecution’s narrative as falsehoods unsupported by affidavit.
He described the relationship between the complainant and his client as cordial and emphasized that the accused has a known residence in Kileleshwa, operates a running business as his sole source of income, and possesses a foreign certificate confirming his legitimate presence in the country.
