A senior bishop at Mamlaka Hill Chapel is facing serious allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a congregant’s wife and misuse of church resources, as a high-stakes legal battle unfolds at the Milimani Law Courts.
The case pits Presiding Bishop Charles Muhia Ng’ang’a against long-serving church member Njihia Njoroge, who has filed a detailed replying affidavit challenging a defamation suit lodged by the cleric.
The dispute has exposed internal tensions within one of Nairobi’s most influential evangelical institutions, raising questions about leadership conduct and accountability.
According to court documents filed on March 16, 2026, Njoroge claims he uncovered a series of WhatsApp messages between his wife, identified as EN, and a contact saved as the bishop’s office line.
The messages, retrieved from a phone previously used by his wife and later accessed by their teenage daughter, are described as personal and suggestive, allegedly exceeding the boundaries of a professional relationship.
In the affidavit, Njoroge cites messages in which the bishop expressed affection and admiration, including one where he allegedly stated he “loved” EN.
Other exchanges referenced late-night communication and meetings, which Njoroge argues point to an emotional relationship inconsistent with the bishop’s spiritual role.
The matter escalated after Njoroge confronted the bishop privately, following biblical dispute resolution procedures. A meeting held on November 20, 2025, at a Nairobi restaurant was recorded and later transcribed as part of court evidence.
In the transcript, the bishop reportedly acknowledged sending the messages and admitted they were “inappropriate,” but denied any physical relationship.
He is quoted in the court record swearing that he had never engaged in a physical affair with the woman, maintaining that their relationship was based on friendship and professional interaction developed over two decades.
However, the affidavit notes that no concrete steps were proposed by the bishop to address the situation or mitigate its impact on the family and the church.
Beyond the alleged affair, the case has taken a more complex turn with claims of financial impropriety.
Njoroge alleges that messages on the same device reveal instructions by the bishop to process payments and manage funds in ways that may have blurred personal and institutional boundaries.
These include directives to issue construction cheques, facilitate payments to third parties, and handle what are described as personal expenses using church resources.
One message allegedly references repairs to a personal vehicle funded through church accounts, while others suggest adjustments to procurement thresholds during the bishop’s absence.
Lawyers representing Njoroge argue that the communications point to a pattern of administrative irregularities and possible misuse of church funds.
They further claim that EN may have been placed in a compromised position, balancing professional duties with personal expectations from the bishop.
The allegations have not yet been tested in full trial, and the bishop has not publicly responded to the latest claims beyond the ongoing defamation proceedings.
The case is expected to continue at the Milimani courts, where it is likely to draw significant public and congregational interest.
As the legal process unfolds, the controversy threatens to shake the leadership structure and public image of Mamlaka Hill Chapel, with wider implications for governance and accountability within faith-based institutions in Kenya.