The Judiciary issued a clarification following public debate over a recent High Court ruling in the case involving Raphael Tuju, emphasizing that the decision was firmly grounded in established legal principles and the long litigation history of the matter.
In a statement released by Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo, the institution said the case—Dari Limited & Raphael Tuju vs Garam Investment Auctioneers & Knight Frank Valuers Ltd & Others—centres on efforts by lenders to recover a debt exceeding USD 15 million through the sale of secured properties owned by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs had moved to the High Court seeking orders to stop the auction and transfer of the properties, arguing their case should be heard fully before any sale.
While the court initially granted temporary orders preserving the properties, the defendants challenged both the court’s jurisdiction and the legitimacy of the suit.
The Judiciary noted that the dispute is not new, but part of a prolonged legal battle spanning multiple courts and jurisdictions, including a 2019 judgment by the High Court of Justice ordering repayment of the debt, recognition and enforcement of that judgment by the High Court of Kenya in 2020, upholding of the decision by the Court of Appeal of Kenya in 2023 and refusal by the Supreme Court of Kenya to grant interim relief halting enforcement
In its March 9, 2026 ruling, the High Court determined that the issues raised by the plaintiffs had already been conclusively decided by competent courts.
As such, the application was barred by the legal doctrine of res judicata, which prevents courts from re-hearing matters that have already been settled.
The court found that the validity of the loan agreement and the amount owed had already been determined, the lender’s right to recover the debt through the secured properties was legally established and the new application largely replicated earlier claims, even though framed as constitutional issues.
The judge concluded that the case amounted to an abuse of the court process and reiterated that courts cannot act as appellate bodies over decisions of courts of equal or higher jurisdiction.
The High Court allowed the defendants’ objections, struck out the amended suit, dismissed the injunction application, and lifted all interim orders that had blocked the sale of the properties.
The plaintiffs have since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. The Judiciary has urged restraint from all parties and the public, warning against commentary that could interfere with the appellate process.
“The matter is now properly before the appellate court, and due process must be allowed to take its course,” the statement said.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
