Call her a ‘slay queen’, but she has rights, Kitany’s lawyer to Linturi

MITHIKA LINTURI (L) AND MARIANNE KITANY (R) [PHOTO | COURTESY]

The battle for access to a palatial Runda home between estranged couple Mithika Linturi, who is Meru County Senator, and his partner, Marriane Kitany, was fought in the courts again on Tuesday, January 15.

Ms Kitany wants temporary order granting her access to the couple’s Runda home be extended.

The applicant was allowed access to the Runda mansion on December 11, 2018 after Mr Linturi allegedly forcefully evicted Ms Kitany, terming her a “visitor” in his house.

Ms Kitany’s lawyer says her client and the respondent were lovers, and there is no way that relationship should go down the drain without considering what they shared.

“My client has lived together and spent quality time with the respondent. She even campaigned for the respondent, when he was running for political office. The amount of time the two have spent together can’t be wished out,” said Ms Kitany’s lawyer said at the Milimani Courts on Tuesday.

“[The respondent can] call her a visitor, a slay queen… She has rights, [and should be protected against] any forceful eviction, which hasn’t followed due process,” said the complainant’s lawyer.

“The applicant has faced injustices occasioned by a person so dear, so loving, so caring… only [for him] to turn to be a greatest tormentor to the applicant. This is a matter that deals with the protection against domestic violence, and not a divorce case that we should find out whether there was marriage… That will be dealt with by the court in Meru.

“This court has the jurisdiction to provide the orders granted and has a duty to protect every person; whether they are slay queens, prostitutes… any word that is being used to refer to a stay-dump relationship,” said Ms Kitany’s lawyer.

“Since the orders were interim, we are asking that the orders be extended,” urged Ms Kitany’s lawyer.

Mr Linturi’s lawyer, however, said Ms Kitany’s access to their Runda home should be hinged on proof of a concrete relationship, and not a mere claim that they lived together.

“Kitany must satisfy you on the existence of a relationship,” said the respondent’s lawyer.

“Kitany owns several expensive houses, and therefore, saying that the Runda house is the only suitable house for her and her children is not factual. Kitany’s children are adults. The children who need housing are the respondent’s children aged 4 and 8; not Kitany’s children.

“The application of Kitany is an abuse of office meant to deprive Linturi of his right to property,” said the defendant’s lawyer.

The court will give its ruling on February 1.

tagged in:


Categories: Uncategorized | Comments