In August 2021, Naivasha Member of Parliament Jane Kihara lost property and vehicles worth millions to auctioneers. The MP is said to have lost five luxury vehicles and property over a debt she owed former MP and former NACADA boss John Mututho. In October 2021, she appealed against the loss unsuccessfully.
The property was seized on behalf of Mututho by Tango Auctioneers and General Merchants. According to a report that appeared in the Daily Nation, the court authorized Tango to attach the legislator’s movable property to raise Sh.10, 988, 786.
This money had apparently accrued from a petition that Kihara had made against Mututho’s election as Naivasha MP in 2008. Ms. Kihara lost the petition.
After losing the election case, Ms. Kihara was asked order to foot the costs. This led to a court battle that lasted for five years. “In 2016, the court’s commercial wing approved a Sh. 7.5 million cost but she challenged it at the High Court. The High Court, however, upheld the decision in 2019 before she sought its review before Justice Joel Ngugi. Justice Ngugi, while affirming the decision of the courts on June 24, said Ms Kihara needed to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal rather than the High Court. He granted her leave to file her appeal out of time. To secure orders of stay of execution of the orders, Justice Ngugi directed that Ms Kihara pay Mr Mututho half of the amount and deposit a bank guarantee of Sh. 7.5 million within 45 days,” the report said.
Married Njoro cop walks to hospital, shoots girlfriend dead, then kills self
However, Kihara did not move to the Court of Appeal. She also did not pay the half amount as Justice Ngugi had ordered. On August 18, the court issued a directive for the seizure of her property. “Whereas Jayne Njeri Kihara was ordered by the judgment of this court passed on December 19, 2019 to pay the plaintiff the sum of Sh. 7,523107 as noted in the margin, and whereas the sum now due and payable in respect to the said decree is Sh. 10, 988,786. This is to command you to attach the movable property of the said petitioner,” the warrant from the court said.
