A university dropout accused of siphoning Ksh11.4 million from a leading betting firm has requested the court to close his case file, arguing that ongoing investigations are infringing on his freedom.
Appearing before Milimani Principal Magistrate Ben Mark Ekhubi, the defence team representing Seth Mwabe Okwanyo opposed the State’s application seeking an additional five weeks to complete investigations. The prosecution had asked for more time to review documents allegedly obtained during their probe into the cyber fraud case.
Mwabe’s legal counsel argued that the court should close the miscellaneous application file and allow the prosecution to finalize investigations independently. According to the defence, keeping the file active was unnecessarily prolonging the case and restricting Mwabe’s freedom of movement. The lawyers contended that the accused was living in constant anxiety, unable to rest or move freely because the case remained unresolved.
“Your honour, we do not have to come here all the time; we can close this file. They can take five weeks, two years, or three years, but when they are ready, they can supply us with a charge sheet,” the defence submitted. The team further stated that the prosecution’s approach was an infringement on Mwabe’s constitutional rights, arguing that the continued court appearances were unjustified without concrete charges.
Mwabe had earlier been released on September 3, 2025, after the court declined the prosecution’s application to detain him for 20 days. Magistrate Ekhubi ruled that the prosecution’s request lacked merit and that denying Mwabe his liberty would be unjustified since he had no control over the pace of the ongoing investigations.
The court granted Mwabe a bond of Ksh1 million with a surety of a similar amount or an alternative cash bail of Ksh500,000. He was also directed to report to the investigating officer, Julius Cheruiyot, once a week pending further developments in the case.
Mwabe is being investigated for accessing computer systems with intent to commit further offences, contrary to Section 15(1) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, and for theft under Section 268(1) as read with Section 275 of the Penal Code. The case remains under review as the prosecution determines its next steps.
