By KPC Reporter
The passing of one Dorothy Nasimiyu Muoma on February 3, 2026, has become the subject of public debate after the Judiciary of Kenya issued a âclarificationâ distancing itself from her professional legacy.
While family and colleagues recall her resilience and achievements, the official statement has left many Kenyans unsettled.
The family had eulogized Nasimiyu as a resilient kin who suffered a childhood accident in 1997, coupled with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, which reshaped her journey.
Yet she pressed forward academically, earning a Bachelor of Laws from Dr. Ambedkar Marathwada University in India in 1996, and later completing her training at the Kenya School of Law.
In 2003, she was sworn in as an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and worked in private practice and at the Attorney Generalâs office under NALEP, serving as Assistant Registrar in Kisumu until illness forced her departure in 2014.
Attempts to establish her own law firm in 2016 were hindered by recurring health issues, according to the eulogy seen by KPC.
Her death at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (MTRH) after treatment for severe sepsis was followed by social media claims that she had once served as a magistrate at Kitale Law Courts.
There were also claims that she became mentally ill and found herself on the streets, sliding further down from the promising career she had built.
Online reactions included accusations that the Judiciary abandoned one of their own at the time of need.
In response, the Judiciary issued a statement on February 19, 2026, declaring: âWe would like to confirm that Ms. Muoma was never an employee of the Judiciary at any point in her career. We nonetheless wish to condole with the family at her passing away.â
The statement has sparked confusion and criticism with observers asking how someone sworn in as an Advocate of the High Court could be erased so publicly.
âDorothyâs struggles were real, but her achievements were undeniable. She deserved recognition, not disownment,â one commentator said as the Judiciaryâs clarification appeared to blur the line between institutional fact and public perception.
