The Judiciary has moved to clarify the legal basis of a recent High Court decision involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju and his company, Dari Limited, amid heightened public scrutiny over the long-running debt dispute.
In a statement issued on March 18, 2026, the Judiciary outlined the context of the ruling delivered on March 9 in the case Dari Limited & Raphael Tuju vs Garam Investment Auctioneers, Knight Frank Valuers Ltd & Others.
The clarification follows growing debate triggered by enforcement actions tied to the case, including Tuju’s reported eviction from his Karen property earlier in March.
According to the Judiciary, the dispute arises from attempts by lenders to recover a long-standing debt through the realization of securities attached to two properties owned by Dari Limited.
Tuju and his company had moved to court seeking injunctive orders to stop the auction and transfer of the properties pending the hearing of the case.
While the High Court initially granted interim orders to preserve the assets, the defendants later challenged both the court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the proceedings.
The court, upon reviewing submissions from both sides, found that the matter had already been extensively litigated across multiple jurisdictions.
Central to the dispute is a 2019 judgment by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, which ordered repayment of more than USD 15 million under a financing agreement.
That ruling was subsequently recognized by the Kenyan High Court in 2020, upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2023, and left undisturbed after the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief.
The Judiciary further noted that similar applications by Tuju seeking to block enforcement had previously been dismissed by the High Court in 2024.
In its latest determination, the court ruled that the new application effectively reintroduced issues that had already been conclusively settled.
It invoked the doctrine of res judicata, which bars courts from rehearing matters that have been previously determined by competent jurisdictions.
The court emphasized that questions surrounding the validity of the loan agreement, the outstanding amount, and the lender’s right to enforce securities had already been resolved.
It also found that presenting similar claims under constitutional arguments amounted to an abuse of the court process.
As a result, the court allowed the defendants’ applications, struck out the amended plaint, and lifted all interim orders that had temporarily stopped the auction of the properties.
The plaintiffs have since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. The Judiciary has urged restraint in public commentary, warning against parallel discourse that could undermine the integrity of the ongoing appellate process.
The case continues to draw national attention, not only due to Tuju’s prominence but also because of its broader implications on debt enforcement, property rights, and the finality of court decisions in Kenya’s legal system.