By Xavier Lugaga
A disputed multimillion-shilling property. A secret will that allegedly excluded a wife from her husband's estate. Accusations of missing title documents and misappropriated company funds. A marriage reportedly on the verge of collapse. And a man who allegedly warned a friend that if he was found dead, his wife should be investigated.
These are some of the central strands of the prosecution's case in the murder trial of Sarah Wairimu, who is accused of murdering her husband, Dutch businessman Tob Cohen.
The case has drawn intense public interest because of the circumstances surrounding Cohen's disappearance and the subsequent discovery of his body concealed in an underground water tank at the couple's Kitisuru home in Nairobi.
The prosecution is seeking to establish a possible connection between the couple's deteriorating relationship, their financial disagreements and the circumstances surrounding Cohen's death.
Among the evidence presented in court are accounts concerning an alleged attempt to remove a caveat registered against the disputed property, testimony about Cohen's estate-planning arrangements and claims by a close friend that the businessman had expressed fears about his safety.
Taken together, the accounts form a narrative the prosecution wants the court to consider. However, the existence of a financial dispute or a possible motive does not, on its own, establish that a person committed murder.
1. THE PROPERTY QUESTION: WHO WANTED THE CAVEAT REMOVED?
One of the significant strands of testimony concerns the Kitisuru property, reportedly valued at approximately KSh400 million, which became a source of contention between Cohen and Wairimu.
According to the account attributed to Mary Mutisya, a clerk associated with a law firm, Wairimu paid her through M-Pesa to conduct a land search and assist with efforts to remove a caveat registered against the property.
The timing of the alleged transaction is central to the prosecution's theory.
Investigators have sought to establish whether the attempt to remove the restriction was connected to the couple's deteriorating relationship and the financial disagreements that reportedly preceded Cohen's disappearance.
A caveat is a legal notice registered against a property to protect a claimed interest or alert parties that a transaction affecting the property may be disputed. Depending on the circumstances and the applicable legal process, it can prevent or complicate dealings such as a transfer or registration of certain interests.
In this case, the prosecution's narrative is that Cohen had taken steps to protect his interest in the Kitisuru home and that the subsequent attempt to remove the caveat deserves scrutiny.
The critical questions include who initiated the process, what instructions were given, what the intended outcome was and whether the transaction had any connection to the events that followed.
The alleged payment and the attempt to remove the caveat are matters of evidence. Their significance must be assessed alongside the other evidence presented at trial.
2. THE FRIEND WHO DESCRIBED A MARRIAGE IN CRISIS
Former Member of Parliament Patrick Muiruri, identified as a close friend of Cohen, reportedly testified about the businessman’s concerns over his marriage and financial affairs.
According to the account of his testimony, Cohen had discovered that title documents relating to the property were missing from a safe. He allegedly suspected Wairimu of taking the documents.
The testimony also concerned allegations that money belonging to their jointly associated business, Kenya Gold Safaris, had been used to finance the construction of a hotel in Nanyuki.
These allegations, if established, would help explain the extent of the reported financial disagreement between the couple.
But they also raise important questions that require evidence: Who owned the disputed funds? What financial arrangements governed the business? Were the transactions authorised? And what documentary evidence supports the competing accounts?
The prosecution's interest lies in determining whether these disagreements formed part of a wider sequence of events relevant to Cohen's death.
The defence, meanwhile, is entitled to challenge the credibility, accuracy and interpretation of the evidence.
A financial dispute may provide context, but it cannot independently establish criminal responsibility for murder.
3. THE SECRET WILL THAT ALLEGEDLY EXCLUDED WAIRIMU
Another important element of the prosecution's narrative concerns Cohen's reported estate-planning arrangements before his disappearance.
According to testimony attributed to Muiruri, Cohen had instructed lawyer Chege Kirundi to prepare a new will that would distribute his estate among members of his family.
The account suggests that the proposed arrangements allocated 50 per cent to his sister, Gabrielle, with the remaining 50 per cent shared among his brother, nephew and niece.
Wairimu was reportedly excluded from the proposed distribution.
If supported by the relevant documents and testimony, this evidence could help establish the state of the couple's relationship and Cohen's intentions concerning his estate.
However, several distinctions are important.
A proposed will is not necessarily the same as a validly executed will. Its legal status depends on the relevant formalities and circumstances. Equally, excluding a spouse from a proposed distribution does not prove that the spouse committed or planned a crime.
The court must consider what document existed, when it was prepared, whether it was properly executed and what the evidence establishes about Cohen's intentions.
For the prosecution, the reported will forms part of a broader picture involving the property dispute and the couple's alleged marital breakdown.
The question is whether the evidence, considered as a whole, supports the prosecution's allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
4. DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AND ALLEGATIONS OF CRUELTY
The court has also heard accounts concerning Cohen's reported intention to pursue a contested divorce.
According to the narrative presented through witness testimony, he had engaged a lawyer in connection with a proposed separation and intended to raise allegations involving cruelty, missing property documents and the alleged misuse of company funds.
The reported divorce plans are significant because they suggest that the relationship may have reached a point at which the couple's personal, financial and property interests were increasingly in conflict.
A contested divorce can have consequences for family arrangements and property disputes. But the precise legal consequences depend on the facts, the applicable law and the proceedings themselves.
The prosecution's theory is that Cohen's reported plans to end the marriage, together with the disputed property and proposed will, provide a possible explanation for the conflict preceding his disappearance.
That remains a theory to be tested against the evidence.
It is necessary to distinguish between what Cohen allegedly intended to do, what steps were actually taken and what can be proved about the events surrounding his death.
5. THE PROSECUTION'S PROPOSED MOTIVE: MONEY, PROPERTY AND A COLLAPSING MARRIAGE
The prosecution's case appears to draw together three principal issues: the Kitisuru property, the reported financial disagreements and Cohen's alleged intention to end the marriage.
According to the state's theory, the combination of these disputes may have provided a motive for the alleged offence.
The prosecution's narrative is that Cohen had taken steps to protect his interest in the property through a caveat, was reportedly considering divorce proceedings and had made estate-planning arrangements that allegedly excluded Wairimu.
The reported attempt to remove the caveat therefore assumes particular importance in the prosecution's account.
But motive is only one component of a murder case.
The prosecution must establish the accused person's criminal responsibility through admissible and credible evidence. It must prove the elements of the offence, including the required unlawful act and malice aforethought, beyond reasonable doubt.
The court must also consider alternative explanations, inconsistencies in witness testimony and any evidence advanced by the defence.
The distinction is crucial: evidence that two people were involved in a bitter dispute does not automatically establish that one killed the other.
6. COHEN DISAPPEARS — AND HIS BODY IS DISCOVERED AT HOME
Cohen's disappearance and the subsequent discovery of his body transformed the dispute into a murder investigation.
His body was found concealed in an underground water tank at the couple's Kitisuru residence.
The discovery raised urgent questions about what had happened inside the property, who knew of his whereabouts and whether anyone had attempted to conceal the circumstances of his death.
The prosecution has sought to connect the evidence about the couple's relationship and property disagreements with the events surrounding the disappearance.
Accounts attributed to workers have also raised allegations that Wairimu instructed them to say Cohen had travelled abroad for medical treatment.
If established, such testimony could be relevant to the investigation into the period after Cohen disappeared.
However, the court must determine precisely what the workers witnessed, what instructions they received, when those instructions were allegedly given and whether their accounts are reliable.
Any alleged attempt to mislead investigators or other people about a person's whereabouts may be relevant evidence, but its significance must be assessed in context rather than assumed.
The central question remains what happened to Cohen, who was responsible and whether the prosecution can prove its case against the accused.
7. THE MOST DISTURBING ALLEGATION: 'IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO ME...'
Perhaps the most striking part of the account attributed to Muiruri concerns a warning Cohen allegedly made before his death.
According to the reported testimony, Cohen told his friend that if anything bad happened to him, or if he was found dead somewhere, people should direct their attention to Sarah.
The alleged statement has become a particularly significant feature of the prosecution's narrative because it appears to suggest that Cohen had expressed concern about his safety before he disappeared.
But the evidential value of such a statement must be carefully examined.
The court would need to consider the exact words used, the circumstances in which the statement was made, when it was made, whether the witness's recollection is reliable and the legal basis on which the statement may be considered.
A person's reported fear or suspicion about another individual is not, by itself, proof that the individual subsequently committed a crime.
Nevertheless, if the statement is admitted and considered reliable, the court may assess it alongside the other evidence in determining the significance of Cohen's reported concerns.
The distinction between a warning, a suspicion and proof of guilt is fundamental to a fair criminal trial.
8. IS THE EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO LINK WAIRIMU TO THE MURDER?
The prosecution's case, as reflected in the testimony described above, rests on several strands of evidence that it wants the court to consider together.
These include:
The disputed property: Testimony concerning the caveat registered against the Kitisuru home and an alleged attempt to have it removed.
The financial disagreements: Claims involving missing title documents and the alleged use of business funds to finance a hotel in Nanyuki.
The reported will: Evidence concerning Cohen's proposed distribution of his estate among relatives.
The proposed divorce: Accounts of his alleged intention to end the marriage amid accusations of cruelty and financial misconduct.
The warning: Muiruri's account of Cohen's alleged statement expressing concern about what might happen to him.
The aftermath: Testimony concerning the circumstances of Cohen's disappearance and allegations about what workers were told afterwards.
The prosecution may argue that these circumstances form a connected sequence rather than unrelated events.
The defence, however, is entitled to challenge whether the evidence establishes the necessary connection between the accused and the killing.
The court must evaluate the testimony, documentary records, forensic evidence and all other admissible material before reaching a conclusion.
A possible motive, a disputed property transaction or a reported warning may be relevant. None should be treated as a substitute for proof of criminal responsibility.
THE BIG QUESTION: WHAT WILL THE COURT MAKE OF THE EVIDENCE?
The Tob Cohen murder trial raises difficult questions about the intersection of marriage, money, property ownership and criminal investigation.
At its centre is a man whose body was discovered concealed at his home, a marriage reportedly marked by serious disagreements and an accused person who must be judged on the evidence presented in court.
The prosecution is seeking to demonstrate that the alleged financial and marital disputes help explain the circumstances surrounding Cohen's death.
The defence has the right to contest that interpretation, challenge witnesses and present its own account.
Ultimately, the court—not public speculation—must determine whether the evidence establishes Sarah Wairimu's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Wairimu faces a murder charge and is presumed innocent unless and until she is found guilty by a competent court.
The question is not simply whether a motive can be alleged. It is whether the prosecution can prove, through reliable evidence, that the accused was criminally responsible for Tob Cohen's death.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.