A fierce courtroom battle has erupted between former Nairobi Governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko and lawyer Lucy Momanyi in a defamation case that has brought to light a saga of disputed wills, multi-million-shilling estates, and explosive allegations of professional misconduct aired live on television.
The case, now unfolding at the Milimani High Court, centers on a fundamental legal question: was Sonko’s fiery television rant protected speech, or was it a deliberate act of defamation intended to destroy a lawyer’s reputation?
The Television Outburst That Sparked the Lawsuit
The defamation suit stems from Sonko’s appearance on KTN’s “Morning Express” show on April 1, 2014, where he launched a scathing verbal attack against advocate Lucy Momanyi, who was then serving as a co-administrator of the estate of the late James Simon Bellhouse.
“I’m calling Lucy Momanyi a thief! She’s a lawyer but a thief! And I have evidence to prove it,” Sonko declared during the broadcast. “Let her sue Sonko! She’s a thief, a crook, and she should be charged very soon.”
These words, now immortalized in court documents, form the crux of Momanyi’s lawsuit — one that seeks to hold Sonko accountable for what she calls reckless, false, and ruinous remarks.
Lawyer Lucy Momanyi’s Defamation Claim
Through her legal team, Soita & Saende Advocates, Momanyi accuses Sonko of publishing false statements that injured her reputation, career, and dignity.
Her petition argues that the statements implied she was dishonest, fraudulent, and unfit to practice law, causing her both professional and emotional distress.
Momanyi is seeking:
-
A permanent injunction stopping Sonko from making further defamatory remarks
-
General and exemplary damages for reputational and emotional harm
-
A public apology and retraction aired on the same TV platform
She claims the statements were broadcast to a national audience, amplifying their damaging impact on her standing within the legal community and among her clients.
Sonko’s Defense: Public Interest or Defamation?
In a defense filed through Mbichire & Co. Advocates, Sonko denies making the remarks attributed to him. His lawyers argue that if he did make any comments, they were truthful, made in good faith, and in the public interest.
The former governor maintains that his words were a fair response to issues of legitimate public concern, particularly allegations surrounding the administration of the Bellhouse estate.
Sonko’s team has also invoked constitutional protections of free expression, claiming he acted as a whistleblower exposing misconduct — not as a defamer.
A Multi-Million Estate at the Heart of the Feud
The roots of this courtroom battle trace back to the estate of James Simon Bellhouse, a wealthy businessman who died in 2009 leaving assets worth hundreds of millions of shillings.
Following his death, two conflicting wills surfaced, sparking years of bitter wrangling between Momanyi and the widow, Joy Nadzua Bellhouse.
The first will, drafted by Momanyi’s law firm, named her as a co-executor alongside the widow. A second, simpler will named Joy as the sole executor, creating a deep divide between the two women.
Joy accused Momanyi of interfering with the estate, claiming she had inserted herself as a beneficiary and blocked access to key assets. The dispute spilled beyond probate courts — leading to complaints filed with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), the Mombasa Law Society, and a police report at Diani Police Station, where the widow alleged threats from Momanyi.
How Sonko Got Involved
Court documents show that Joy Bellhouse reached out to Mike Sonko in 2014 for help recovering her late husband’s property. Sonko later went on national television, claiming to expose corruption within the estate’s administration.
In a letter dated June 2014, Joy wrote:
“His [Sonko’s] assistance has greatly boosted my chances of recovering all the assets.”
This correspondence is now a key exhibit in Sonko’s defense — linking his televised remarks to the widow’s grievances and suggesting he was acting on verified complaints, not malice.
Momanyi’s Side of the Story
In her sworn affidavit, Momanyi insists she acted with professional integrity and transparency throughout the administration of the estate.
She states that upon the client’s death, Joy informed her that several properties had been sold to cover medical expenses, and she (Joy) had been a signatory to the deceased’s accounts.
Momanyi claims she took measures to protect the estate’s assets, including notifying banks and recovering KSh 75,000 in dividends from a defunct bank — funds she says were fully remitted to the widow.
She further alleges that Sonko harassed and threatened her, confronting her in person at the Mombasa Law Courts in 2012 and making phone calls that led her to file a police report on February 28, 2014.
Court Proceedings and Legal Stakes
The Milimani High Court now faces the challenge of determining whether Sonko’s comments constitute defamation or protected opinion under Kenya’s freedom of expression laws.
Both sides have filed extensive affidavits, and the case will likely hinge on:
-
Whether Sonko’s statements were factual assertions or opinions
-
Whether they were made maliciously or in public interest
-
The extent of damage to Momanyi’s reputation
Legal experts note that this case could set a precedent on how far public figures can go when making allegations on broadcast media.
The matter will proceed for a full hearing at the Milimani Law Courts, where both parties are expected to call witnesses — including the widow, Joy Bellhouse, and media representatives from KTN.