Victoria Karugu Loses Bid to Join Family Will Case
The High Court has dismissed an application by Victoria Nyambura Karugu to join a constitutional case filed by two of her brothers and five other individuals challenging their prosecution in connection with allegations relating to the will of the siblings’ late father. Their father, James Boro Karugu, was a former Attorney-General.
In a ruling delivered on September 30, 2026, Justice Gregory Mutai said Karugu had failed to justify her intended participation in the case, notwithstanding her position as the sole objector to the disputed will.
"I therefore find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that her intended submissions are relevant to the issues in the Petition and are not merely a repetition of the existing parties' case," reads the ruling.
The judge held that lodging a complaint did not, by itself, give someone an automatic right to join court proceedings challenging a decision by the State to prosecute.
"Being the complainant does not, without more, make a person an interested party in a petition that challenges the exercise of investigative or prosecutorial power. The applicant must still satisfy each of the three elements....," judge noted.
Karugu had asked the court to allow her to participate in the petition, file her own affidavits and make written and oral submissions.
The application was opposed by Erick Mwaura Karugu, Benjamin Githara Karugu and the other petitioners, who argued that the case was about the legality of the decision to prosecute them, not whether their late father’s will was genuine.
According to court documents, the first and second petitioners, Erick Mwaura Karugu and Benjamin Githara Karugu are the deceased’s sons, while two other petitioners are named as witnesses to the will. Three more are listed as its executors.
The executors have filed for a grant of probate in a succession case pending before the High Court’s Family Division in Milimani.
Karugu, the deceased’s eldest child, has singly opposed the will, alleging that it is forged.
Separately, Karugu lodged a complaint over the alleged forgery of the will and a settlement trust deed dated the same day. Investigations followed, and the Director of Public Prosecutions approved charges against the first and third to seventh petitioners.
The alleged offences include forgery of a will, uttering a false document and conspiracy to defraud. The allegations have yet to be determined through the relevant proceedings.
In their constitutional petition, the petitioners argue that prosecuting them before the succession court determines whether the will is genuine would violate their constitutional rights.
They claim the criminal proceedings could be used to pressure witnesses and influence the succession dispute before the court reaches a decision on the will.
They want the court to declare the decision to prosecute them unconstitutional and an abuse of the legal process.
They have also asked the court to stop the prosecution over matters directly connected to the will’s validity until the succession court determines the dispute.
The petitioners have further challenged the application of Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows criminal and civil proceedings arising from the same facts to run concurrently.
In seeking to join the case, Karugu argued that she had a direct interest in its outcome as a beneficiary of the estate, the sole objector in the succession proceedings and the complainant whose report led to the investigations.
She also told the court that the petitioners had mentioned her several times in their pleadings and accused her of using the criminal process to gain an advantage in the family dispute.
She argued that she deserved an opportunity to respond rather than have the court consider those allegations without hearing her side.
But the petitioners maintained that the State was already represented in the case and could defend its decision to prosecute. They also warned that allowing Karugu to participate could turn the constitutional petition into a wider battle over the authenticity of the will and the family’s succession dispute.
Justice Mutai agreed that her application had not met the legal test for joinder.
Citing Supreme Court decisions on the participation of interested parties, the judge said an applicant must show a clear stake in the specific issues before the court, demonstrate the prejudice they would suffer if excluded and explain how their proposed submissions would add value without repeating arguments already being made.
The judge found that Karugu’s interest in the estate was being addressed in the succession case, while a separate complaint over the alleged transfer of her shares in Mathara Holdings Limited was the subject of another criminal case.
He said the constitutional petition primarily concerned the exercise of public power by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the legality of the decision to charge the petitioners.
The responsibility to justify that decision, the judge said, rested with the State, not the complainant.
The judge was also unconvinced that excluding Karugu would leave her prejudiced.
He noted that the petitioners were seeking orders against State agencies, not against Karugu personally.
Her interests in the succession case would also remain intact, regardless of the outcome of the constitutional petition.
Should the criminal case proceed to trial, the judge said, Karugu could exercise her rights as a victim under the Victim Protection Act, with the trial court determining the extent of her participation
Another concern was the amount of material Karugu sought to introduce into the case.
Her supporting affidavit ran to 217 paragraphs, with annexures spanning 1,503 pages. The documents addressed the authenticity of the will and trust deed, competing forensic reports, the family’s business dealings and complaints against judicial officers involved in the succession proceedings.
Justice Mutai said much of that material went beyond the constitutional questions raised by the petitioners.
Allowing it into the case, he said, risked drawing the court into issues that belonged before the succession court and creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.
The judge concluded that Karugu had not shown that her participation was necessary or that her submissions would contribute anything sufficiently distinct from the arguments already before the court.
The court dismissed Karugu’s application dated February 17, 2026.
"Having found that the Applicant has not satisfied any of the three elements, I conclude that the application must fail. For the avoidance of doubt, this Ruling expresses no view on the merits of the Petition, the validity of the Will, or the conduct of any party in the Succession Cause or in the criminal proceedings," reads the ruling.