What you need to know:
He argues that his prosecution amounts to abuse of office and that he risks to be subjected to unfair treatment.
In 2016, controversial preacher James Ng’ang’a rented his 17-bedroom house in one of Nairobi’s leafy suburbs to some Chinese nationals.
Three years later, he has found himself staring at prosecution in a Sh3.6 million fraud claim after the deal on the Karen property went sour.
The televangelist has since moved to court to seek protection from imminent prosecution over the alleged escalating row that has seen his former tenants accuse him of fraudulently taking away the said money.
In his filed case documents, Pr Ng'ang'a claimed that the row stems from a civil dispute with a Mr Wickson Njoroge Mwathi, who acted as an agent for the Chinese nationals.
He accused Mr Mwathi of making good his threat to "use his connections with the police" to settle a score with him.
Through lawyer Cliff Oduk, he has sued Mr Mwathi, the IG of Police, the DCI and the DPP.
Mr Oduk asked the court to issue an order of injunction restraining the agents of the sued parties from instituting, arraigning and charging Pr Ng’ang’a in court.
The Neno Evangelism leader in his case documents claimed that Mr Mwathi had vowed to teach him a lesson using his ‘connections’ with the police.
“I was subsequently harassed and subjected through untold pain and suffering in an attempt to exert illegal as well as unlawful pressure to make payment of the said monies to Mr Mwathi,” he said.
Pastor Ng’ang’a presented himself at the Central Police Station on April 1 after being called by the Officer Commanding Station.
He alleged that it is then that he learnt that he was being accused of fraudulently obtaining money from Mr Mwathi.
He was then arrested on April 2 but was later on freed on a police bond of Sh 100,000.
He appeared before a court in Milimani on April 5 to take plea but was told that the matter was still under investigation.
The case is set to come up in court again on Tuesday.
But he argues that his prosecution amounts to abuse of office and that he risks to be subjected to unfair treatment.