Lawyer Guy Spencer has been accused of forging the will of his late client in an effort to take possession of his prime property in Karen, Nairobi.

There has been a media onslaught by Lawyer Guy Spencer and his wife in regard to one of the most complex property rows in Kenya. The lawyer of British extraction recently engaged British media company Daily Mail to defend him with allegations he is yet to proof.

Surprisingly, the media house published his claims wholesale without verification. The article also was in contempt of  the Kenyan Judicial system as the matter is in court and put government on spot claiming its authorities have beaten him and even sent him threats.

A look at documents touching on the case shows many missing links to his claims. The most obvious is the fact that Spencer registered a sister company that has almost the same name as a company owned by his deceased client company, Plover Haunts Limited. Guy Spencer and his wife registered Plover Haunts 2015, the first indication of a dubious scheme to take up the deceased property.

Questions also rise about the fact that he claims that the deceased ordered the proceeds of the money after liquidation of his Karen prime property to go to Kenya Wildlife Service and Beyond Zero campaign when the owner died before the ‘Beyond Zero’ movement was started.

Guy Spencer went ahead and forged a will that he is now defending in court. The police found his will fake which points to an intelligent plot to benefit from the deceased property.

The letter that revoked and voided the investigations report that Guy Spencer is using in his defence and articles in media.

Guy Spencer who took advantage of his race to get public sympathy is yet to produce the original title deed he claims to have. He has since given contradicting information in his police statements about the whereabouts of the deed, mainly pushing a false narrative that it is charged at Habib Bank, to the extended of even sending letters to the bank inquiring about it.

This was disputed by Mr K. Khan, the then Habib Bank lawyer, who said the title was returned to the owners after the discharge. This shows how misinformed he is despite his claim to have the dying will of his client Roger Bryan Robinson.

Archer and Willock Associate, Anne Mwalulu, confirmed that Guy was the author of the will but he didn’t have a copy nor consent to do so, making it an out right forgery.

Interestingly, Guy at one point approached an interested party in the case and offered to settle out of court on conditions that charges against him are withdrawn completely. The British lawyer used an international charm offensive to show an image of a man harassed by local authorities and even shot at without any evidence.

Communications that show Guy Spencer doesn’t have the original title deed of the disputed property as he claims.

The fact that Guy Spencer went ahead and put an ongoing court case in international media is unethical and unprofessional. It gives the image of employing post colonial pressure from the international community on local matters.

Further, a human rights group has written to relevant government bodies including the Inspector General, Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to a certain the claims of harassment by government officials. While another body has written to the Daily Mail on the same issue demanding proof of the claims.

The article in the Daily Mail raised concern among many interested parties in the case.

Incidentally, most of Guy’s claims on the case are published by media houses partly owned by white people. He has even gone ahead and gagged a local media company who’s CEO is a personal friend to Guy Spencer against covering an interested party in the dispute. The media house reproduced the Daily Mail article, showing a collusion.

Guy Spencer and his wife are believed to have been involved in liquidation of other portfolio wealth owned by the deceased, including multi million shares in NSE listed companies. The public is eagerly waiting for the conclusion of this matter in court.

2 COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here