A case involving ICT expert Ndiang’ui Kinyagia was on Friday adjourned by the High Court after confusion over his legal representation and conflicting affidavits disrupted proceedings.

Justice Chacha Mwita said the court could not continue until the parties claiming to represent Ndiang’ui resolved the contradictions, especially around a contested affidavit filed after his mysterious 13-day disappearance.

The Law Society of Kenya, through its president Faith Odhiambo, raised concerns over the contents of an affidavit sworn by lawyer Lilian Wanjiku Gitonga, who is also Ndiang’ui’s cousin. Odhiambo told the court that the affidavit, filed on July 3, was in stark contrast with information previously shared with the LSK regarding Ndiang’ui’s disappearance.

“We want to make an application before we start the hearing of this case, based on an affidavit sworn by Lilian Wanjiku Gitonga. My Lord, this affidavit is in stark contrast to the information we were earlier given,” said Odhiambo.

She further requested that Ndiang’ui, Gitonga, and his mother Margaret Rukwaro be summoned for cross-examination, saying the conflicting narratives had raised serious questions that needed to be clarified before the case could proceed.

“We are seeking to cross-examine Mr Ndiang’ui, Ms Lilian Gitonga, and Ms Margaret Rukwaro since pertinent concerns have arisen from the contents of the affidavit,” Odhiambo said.

Odhiambo also questioned how such a crucial affidavit could be filed in court without notifying the Law Society, despite its role in the petition.

The LSK had previously asked the court to compel the Inspector General of Police and the DCI to produce Ndiang’ui, dead or alive, following his unexplained disappearance.

The affidavit now at the centre of controversy was filed by Gitonga, who claimed she received a call from Ndiang’ui while he was away, during which he assured her that he was “fine and safe” and had not been abducted, contradicting earlier claims suggesting state involvement in his disappearance.

Despite this statement, the whereabouts of Ndiang’ui during the missing period and the reasons behind it remain unclear.

The court also heard that Kibe Mungai, one of the lawyers initially appearing for the family, had prepared an affidavit based on instructions he received directly from Ndiang’ui.

However, after consulting with the family, he was sent an altered version that he said deviated significantly from the original instructions.

“When we left court, the family said the affidavit was making them uncomfortable and I told them to amend it to a version they were comfortable with,” Kibe said.

“Subsequently, I received an amended affidavit that was materially different from the instructions I had drawn from Ndiang’ui. Consequently, I was uncomfortable with the changes and declined to have it filed through my law firm,” he added.

The final version of the affidavit was instead filed by another legal team led by lawyer Wahome Thuku.

This added further confusion over who exactly represents Ndiang’ui and whose version of events the court should rely on.

Justice Mwita noted the contradictions and pointed out that Kibe appeared visibly uncomfortable during his explanation, an observation he shared with Odhiambo in open court.

“You could tell his body language was discomforting,” said the judge, emphasizing the need for clarity on the actual representative of the second petitioner.

“The affidavit here is by someone else and not the second petitioner. We need to make that distinction so that this person can cross-examine this person,” he said.

Due to the unresolved inconsistencies, Mwita adjourned the case to July 24 and directed all parties to sort out the confusion before returning to court.

“This matter cannot proceed until the petitioners decide how to proceed with this case. Put your house in order,” he said.

Ndiang’ui had resurfaced on July 3 after more than a week of silence, appearing in court alongside lawyers Kibe Mungai and Martha Karua.

His disappearance had sparked widespread concern on social media, with many suggesting he had been abducted by state agents — a claim that remains unconfirmed.