NAIROBI, Kenya — A chilling extortion allegation has thrown Kenya’s judiciary into the spotlight, as a man named Benson Limo, alias Benson Leng’olenyang, vanished after being accused of demanding Sh 10 million from a senior judge and threatening him with violence.
Court documents and police affidavits reveal the depth of both the intimidation and the suspect’s effort to evade justice.
The saga began when an Employment and Labour Relations Court judge lodged a complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), alleging that Limo had been sending him threatening messages and demanding the money, purportedly a bribe, through a contact person.
The judge claims to have had no knowledge of any such agreement.
Detective Festus Mate, writing on behalf of the DCI, disclosed that Limo has refused to identify himself in court proceedings, has switched off his phones, and is not responding to messages.
The DCI argues that his petition in court is evasive, alternating between claiming he is a victim of injustice and making unsubstantiated claims about a loan owed by the judge.
Court filings reveal the strange trajectory of Limo’s claims: after the judge reported the threats, Limo and his attorneys shifted their story, insisting that the judge owed him Sh 10 million as a personal loan given at some point in 2024–2025.
This reversal followed the judge’s exposure of harassing messages, screenshot evidence, and forensic examination of the judge’s phone.
The DCI is now pressing the court to force Limo to disclose his identity, place of residence, employment, and the contacts of people who say they know him — or else face consequences.
Detective Mate urged that if Limo does not comply, he should be treated “as a non-existent person … out to defeat justice.” Meanwhile, the judge is reportedly under stress, suffering threats both to him and his family, according to court filings.
Legal experts say this case could be prosecuted under several sections of Kenyan law. Extortion and blackmail are criminal offences; intentionally causing fear of violence or exposure via threats is also punishable.
If Limo is found to have impersonated or fabricated claims, further legal liabilities could follow.
This situation underlines broader concerns about the safety of judicial officers, the mechanisms available for protecting them, and the strength of legal recourse when powerful institutions are threatened with personal harm.
It also raises questions about how individuals can misuse the legal system and public platforms to mount false claims, cause reputational damage, or intimidate.
As things stand, Limo remains untraced. The judge’s petition, backed by the DCI, is underway.
Key questions that remain include whether law enforcement will locate the suspect, whether his claims of loan default hold any legal or evidentiary grounding, and what protections the judiciary will receive in response to such threats.
