The Nairobi High Court has issued interim orders restraining popular Mugithi artist Samuel Muchoki Ndirangu, widely known as Samidoh, from contacting or interfering with a woman who has accused him of rape.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi directed that Samidoh, either personally or through agents, must not harass, intimidate, or engage with the woman, identified in court documents only by her initials M.R.W. to protect her privacy and safety.
In her petition, filed through Kaaya Memba & Company Advocates, M.R.W. claims the musician sexually assaulted her. The judge further ruled that her identity be redacted in all legal documents and, if necessary, court proceedings should be conducted in camera (privately).
The petitioner has urged the court to ensure proper investigations and preservation of evidence, including digital records. She alleges that the evidence—comprising audio recordings and electronic messages—shows Samidoh insulting and threatening her. In one instance, he reportedly dismissed her confrontation by calling her a “professional prostitute.”
M.R.W. claims that between 2021 and 2023, Samidoh repeatedly engaged in manipulative and coercive communication, alternating between feigned friendliness and intimidation. She seeks urgent orders directing police to formally register her complaint and secure her evidence. Additionally, she has requested that the Attorney General coordinate with U.S. authorities for certified police and prosecutorial records, and that the Witness Protection Agency assess her risk and provide protection due to fear of harassment.
Justice Mugambi ordered the police to forensically secure and preserve all relevant documents, digital files, and electronic communications, including the petitioner’s audio and messaging evidence. Preservation notices are to be issued to custodians immediately.
The petition and accompanying application must be served on the respondents either personally or via a nationwide newspaper within seven days. Responses are to be filed within seven days of service, with any rejoinders allowed in the same timeframe.
M.R.W. contends that the state’s prior inaction violated her constitutional rights to dignity, equality, personal security, fair administrative action, and access to justice. The court’s orders represent a crucial initial step in her pursuit of legal recourse.
