Kenyan gospel musician Ringtone Apoko, known for his flamboyant lifestyle and hit songs like “Pamela,” is embroiled in a legal battle involving allegations of land fraud. The case centers on a 0.47-acre parcel of land in Karen, Nairobi, valued at approximately KSh 50 million.
In April 2025, a Nairobi court issued a warrant for Ringtone’s arrest after he failed to appear for a scheduled hearing. He is accused of conspiring with Alfred Juma Ayora to defraud Teresiah Adhiambo Odhiambo of the property, Nairobi Block 99/142. The alleged scheme involved claiming ownership through adverse possession, asserting that Ringtone had occupied the land for over two decades. However, the court questioned the authenticity of medical documents presented by Ringtone’s lawyer, leading to the arrest warrant.
On May 15, 2025, Ringtone Apoko was arraigned in a Nairobi court after skipping several previous hearings. His legal team claimed he was ill and presented medical documents to justify his absence. However, the court questioned the authenticity of these documents and found them insufficient to warrant his absence. Consequently, Senior Principal Magistrate Dolphina Alego issued a warrant for his arrest.
Upon his arrest and subsequent appearance in court, Ringtone was denied bail. The court’s decision was influenced by the seriousness of the charges, the substantial value of the alleged fraud, and concerns over the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or absconding. The denial of bail underscores the gravity with which the court is treating this case.
Ringtone Apoko and his co-accused, Alfred Juma Ayora, face multiple charges related to the alleged fraudulent transaction. The prosecution contends that the duo conspired to unlawfully acquire the land from Teresiah Adhiambo Odhiambo by presenting false claims of ownership through adverse possession.
This is not the first time Ringtone has faced legal challenges related to land. In 2016, he was accused of attempting to defraud a family in Runda of their house and land. Reports suggested that he had forcibly confronted the family over a property that was allegedly illegally allocated to him. However, he later denied the accusations, attributing them to envy from individuals seeking to damage his reputation.
The case is currently ongoing, with the next court session scheduled to further address the charges and determine the appropriate legal course of action.
