The defence team representing a mother and her son accused of being linked to the murder investigation of clinical psychologist and mental health researcher Dr Victoria Mutiso has dismissed claims that a decades-old family dispute could have driven the killing, as detectives sought more time to complete their inquiries.
The arguments were presented before Milimani Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo on Friday after the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) asked the court to detain Rose Mbithe Mulwa, also known as Rose Mbithe Ndetei, and her son Chris Mulwa for 30 days to allow investigators to conclude the probe.
According to the DCI, Rose was formerly married to Mutiso's husband before the marriage ended in 2001. The two had four children together, among them Chris, who is the deceased's stepson through the earlier marriage.
Investigators argued that the family history forms part of the case alongside a long-running dispute over land parcel LR No. 1504/13. Court documents show Rose had sued over the property at the Machakos Law Courts, with Mutiso listed as the third defendant.
The prosecution told the court the disagreement eventually led to the eviction and demolition of structures belonging to Mutiso's family. Detectives further claimed the deceased later started receiving threats linked to the dispute.
The court heard that on July 7, Mutiso reported being trailed by two men on a motorcycle while driving along Ngong Road near Junction Mall. The DCI said the passenger allegedly aimed a gun at her and attempted to shoot.
Investigators further claimed that before her death, Mutiso identified the pillion passenger as Chris.
The defence, however, questioned that account and argued that if investigators had such information, they should have acted immediately instead of waiting until the end of July.
Lawyer Cliff Ombeta asked, "From July 7 to 31, why hadn’t they arrested him for that issue?"
He further demanded that investigators produce the statement in which Mutiso allegedly named Chris, saying the defence was entitled to examine the evidence being relied upon.
Ombeta also disputed claims surrounding the land dispute, maintaining that the eviction was carried out through a lawful court process.
"The eviction was a court order lawfully supervised by the police and the case determined. The property belongs to the first respondent (Rose), not the deceased," he submitted.
Lawyer Danstan Omari also dismissed the suggestion that the divorce could have provided a motive for murder more than two decades later.
"If she had a plan to kill, she could have killed immediately the divorce was present. It’s not now they can decide to revenge after 20 years," Omari submitted.
Responding to the defence, the prosecution said investigators were not yet seeking to charge the two suspects but needed more time to gather enough evidence before making a final decision.
"We have said allow us 30 days to conclude the investigation so that we get sufficient evidence to make a decision," state counsel told the court.
The DCI maintained that the investigation is not limited to the previous marriage or the property case. Detectives said they are still pursuing two people believed to have carried out the fatal shooting and believe the respondents may have information that could help identify or trace them.
The defence rejected that claim, arguing that both suspects were arrested at their homes and had neither gone into hiding nor been linked to the crime scene.
The court also heard that detectives recovered two spent cartridges and a bullet head at the scene, which have since been submitted to the National Forensic Laboratory for ballistic testing.
Investigators are also examining CCTV footage collected from different locations, analysing the respondents' call-data records and investigating a vehicle said to have been operating as an Uber taxi.
Other exhibits remain under forensic examination, while a post-mortem on Mutiso's body has yet to be carried out.
The prosecution described the remaining investigations as sensitive and extensive and urged the court to allow detectives to keep the suspects in custody while they complete the process.
Lawyers representing Mutiso's family supported the application, saying continued detention was necessary because of the seriousness of the case and the risk of interference with witnesses and evidence.
The defence opposed the request, arguing that the investigation could continue while the respondents were out on bail and reporting regularly to investigators. They also asked the court to grant reasonable cash bail and bond terms.
Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo directed that the two remain in custody pending his ruling on the application, which is expected on Monday, August 3, 2026.
He also directed that if either suspect requires medication, relatives may deliver it through the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) at the respective police stations in Kilimani and Kileleshwa.
"They are also at liberty to contact their respective counsels without any limitation," the magistrate said.