Former PC Davis Chelongoi Defense team writes a Complaint to CJ Against Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina.
Lawyers representing Davis Nathan Chelogoi, the first accused in Criminal Case No. MCCRE/E1137/2023 at the Milimani Law Courts, have raised concerns over how the case was handled after it was mentioned before the Chief Magistrate without prior notice.
In a letter dated January 22, 2026, J. Harrison Kinyanjui & Company Advocates wrote to Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina on behalf of Chelogoi stating that the case was mentioned before the Chief Magistrate on January 22 without informing the first accused or his legal team.
According to the defence, the mention was initiated by lawyers representing the second accused person, despite the matter having been in court the previous day.
Court records show that on January 21, all parties appeared before Principal Magistrate Rose Ndombi, where submissions were made and, by agreement, the case was adjourned to March 26, 2026.
The court also directed that typed proceedings be prepared before the next hearing date.
The defence states that this agreed court order had not been changed or cancelled when the case was later mentioned before the Chief Magistrate the following day.
In their letter, the lawyers questioned why the matter was taken before the Chief Magistrate without notifying all parties, saying the move created confusion and uncertainty about how the case should proceed.
The letter also refers to changes at the Milimani Law Courts following the transfer of Magistrate Dolphina Alego from the station on January 12, 2026.
An internal court notice issued in December 2025 indicated that cases previously handled in her court were to be taken over by Principal Magistrate Rose Ndombi.
The defence noted that an earlier application seeking Magistrate Alego’s recusal had already been dismissed by the High Court on January 20, 2026.
They say the issue was later withdrawn after the magistrate’s transfer made it unnecessary.
The lawyers have asked the Chief Magistrate to confirm that the consent orders issued on January 21 remain in force and that the case continues as scheduled on March 26, 2026.
Copies of the letter were also sent to the Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Judicial Service Commission and other relevant offices.
The defence maintains that there was no urgent reason for the January 22 mention and insists the case should proceed in line with the earlier court directions.
