HubzMedia Fact Check: Two Different Men, Same Name — Kericho Court Case Wrongly Linked to Eldoret Human Rights Activist
HubzMedia Fact-Checking Desk |
A fact-checking investigation by HubzMedia, including a review of original court documents from Kericho, has established that the individual involved in criminal proceedings in 2013 and Eldoret-based human rights activist Kimutai Kirui are two distinct people, despite the similarity in their names.
The investigation found that the individual involved in the Kericho proceedings had a visual impairment and was a person with a disability, while the Eldoret-based activist is a different individual who has disputed being the person named in the criminal case.
The findings raise questions about a WhatsApp post attributed to Joshua Kiplagat, alias Remmy, which circulated a court ruling involving Bernard Kimutai Kirui alongside commentary that could lead readers to associate the criminal proceedings with the Eldoret activist.
Kirui has distanced himself from the allegations, insisting that he has never faced criminal charges or accusations of theft in Kenya. He says the association has damaged his reputation.
Original court documents establish the Kericho proceedings
The case at the centre of the controversy is Bernard Kimutai Kirui v Republic [2013] KEHC 1336 (KLR), Criminal Revision No. 237 of 2013, heard at the High Court in Kericho.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Byram Ongaya on October 18, 2013, following a revision of a conviction and sentence imposed at Sotik.
According to the judgment, the applicant had pleaded guilty to stealing from a person, contrary to Section 279(a) of the Penal Code. He had initially been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, effective September 20, 2012.
The court record indicates that he had served 16 months in prison when the revision was considered.
After reviewing a probation officer’s report describing the applicant as remorseful and suitable for community service, the judge altered the original sentence and directed him to perform 30 days of community service under the officer in charge of Sotik Sub-District Hospital.
The judgment is publicly accessible through Kenya Law.
HubzMedia’s examination of the court documentation and additional identifying information was central to establishing that the person involved in the criminal proceedings was not the Eldoret activist whose name was subsequently associated with the case.
Disability is a distinguishing detail, not a substitute for identity verification
A key distinction identified during the fact-check concerns the visual impairment of the individual involved in the Kericho proceedings.
Additional identifying material examined by HubzMedia indicates that the person involved in the criminal case had a visual impairment and was a person with a disability. The Eldoret-based human rights activist is a different individual.
The distinction reinforces the finding that the two men should not be conflated because of their similar names.
However, the published Kenya Law judgment does not mention the applicant’s visual impairment. That detail is therefore attributed to the additional identifying material examined by HubzMedia and should not be presented as a finding contained in the published judgment.
The central issue is whether the individual named in the court record has been correctly distinguished from the activist whose name has been associated with the proceedings.
WhatsApp post omits important context
The screenshot reviewed by HubzMedia shows a post attributed to Joshua Kiplagat, alias Remmy, reproducing the court ruling and stating that Bernard Kimutai Kirui was found guilty of stealing and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
The accompanying commentary also refers to the individual as a thief and makes a disparaging remark about someone it describes as having appointed himself chairman of an anti-theft committee.
The post does not adequately explain that the High Court subsequently altered the original custodial sentence to 30 days of community service.
More significantly, circulating the ruling alongside commentary about a person with a similar name risks confusing the identity of the applicant in the criminal case with that of the Eldoret activist.
A court judgment establishes the proceedings involving the person identified in that record. It does not establish that another person with a similar name was the accused or applicant.
HubzMedia’s fact-check therefore separates the documented criminal proceedings from the disputed association with the activist.
Activist denies ever facing theft charges
The Eldoret-based human rights activist Kimutai Kirui has distanced himself from the criminal allegations circulating alongside the 2013 Kericho court ruling, insisting that he is not the individual who faced the proceedings.
“I have never been charged in any court in Kenya, nor have I ever faced any accusations of theft,” Kirui said.
He maintains that circulating the court ruling alongside commentary referring to a person with a similar name has wrongly linked him to criminal proceedings involving another individual. He says the association has damaged his reputation as a human rights activist involved in governance and accountability initiatives.
HubzMedia’s investigation supports the distinction between the two individuals based on the original court documentation and additional identifying information examined during the fact-check.
The published judgment documents the criminal proceedings and the subsequent revision of the original prison sentence to community service. It does not establish that the Eldoret activist was the person involved in the case.
Related defamation proceedings
The identity dispute comes amid separate defamation proceedings involving the Eldoret activist and Kiplagat.
A HubzMedia report published on October 7, 2026, stated that Kirui had filed a civil case against Kiplagat over allegedly defamatory publications. The report said the court had directed service of the application and scheduled a mention for October 27, 2026, for directions.
The existence of the proceedings does not establish that defamation has occurred. That remains a matter for determination through the legal process.
The dispute underscores the importance of FACT CHECKING.
HubzMedia Fact-Checking Desk verdict
Finding: Mistaken identity.
HubzMedia’s examination of the original Kericho court documents and additional identifying information establishes that the individual involved in the 2013 criminal proceedings and the Eldoret-based human rights activist Kimutai Kirui are two distinct people.
The court judgment confirms the criminal proceedings against Bernard Kimutai Kirui and records the subsequent alteration of his original prison sentence to community service. Additional identifying material reviewed by HubzMedia distinguishes the individual involved in those proceedings, who had a visual impairment, from the Eldoret activist.
Kirui has denied ever being charged in a Kenyan court or facing accusations of theft. His statement is consistent with the identity distinction established by HubzMedia’s review, although the conclusion rests on the documentary and identifying evidence examined.
The two individuals should not be conflated because of their similar names.
The findings highlight the importance of providing the full context of court decisions and verifying identities before publishing or sharing allegations of criminal conduct.
HubzMedia’s conclusion: A criminal court record must be attributed to the individual it actually concerns. Similar names are not sufficient grounds to associate another person with criminal proceedings.
About Author
