Murgor sisters Cheryll and Stephanie reject cash offer from Ndichu twins

The Murgor sisters have turned down a monetary offer from the Ndichu twin brothers to resolve an assault case.

Their lawyer, Phillip Murgor, says so far, he has been approached by three emissary lawyers, one being an MP from Makueni, with offers of an undisclosed amount of money and an out-of-court settlement for the assault incident that happened at the Ole Sereni Hotel last month.

His clients are Cheryll (24) and Stephanie Murgor (22), together with their associates Mr Samuel Ramdas and Mr Patrick Koech. They claim to have been assaulted by the twins, Paul and Eddie Ndichu, and Munira Hassan on the morning of October 17 at the hotel.

"We rejected the money offers because why should we monetise a crime? They should have started by apologising in public and acknowledging that their actions were wrong," says lawyer Murgor.

The lawyer adds immediately after the incident, the Ndichu brothers sent Sh110,000 to Ramdas via Mpesa but they reversed the transaction. The information was also recorded by the police at Akila station.

Later on October 26, the Ndichu brothers, who are also the co-founders of fintech firm Wapi Pay, through their advocate called for a sitting to resolve the matter amicably.

Another rejected offer from the Ndichu brothers was financing or reimbursement of costs incurred in repairing the car belonging to Mr Ramdas that was damaged during the scuffle.

Ndichus' advocate, Njenga Kiarie, informed Mr Murgor that the brothers were willing to bear the costs of repairing the car.  Mr Kiarie said in the letter: "Our clients still do propose that the said motor vehicle be delivered to their preferred garage or in the alternative if the same has been repaired the sums incurred be refunded by ours in full. In the meantime, ours extends an olive branch to your clients to allow a sitting at the earliest convenience to resolve the matter in finality."

The proposed sitting did not take place as lawyer Murgor first demanded an 'equivocal apology'.

"We politely rejected all the overtures and indicated that it is in the public interest that the case proceeds to court," said Mr Murgor.

The lawyer said his clients are now pursuing criminal prosecution of their aggressors for assault and malicious damage to property.

According to section 250 of the penal code, an offence of common assault attracts punishment of an imprisonment for one year while section 339(1) recommends a five-year imprisonment for those found guilty of malicious damage to property.

Mr Murgor claims that there are attempts by police to scuttle the court trial and twist the matter against his clients after the proposed mediation failed.

"On November 19, a curious development occured when I received a call from the deputy DCIO Langata, asking me to present our clients Cheryl and Patrick to record a statement, provide fingerprints after which they would be charged alongside Munira Hassan for the offence of affray," said Mr Murgor.

Mr Murgor asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to call for the file and give directions on how the offence of affray should be investigated in the light of the explanation of self defence offered by Cheryl and Patrick in the statements already recorded.

The lawyer has also sent the DPP a 66-page letter analysing the hotel's CCTV footage on the incident.

In the letter he has also attached their statements, applicable laws and pictures print outs.