Senior Counsel Nelson Havi has sharply criticized the Judiciary following its recent statement clarifying the court ruling in the high-profile dispute involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju and Dari Limited.
In a response, Havi took issue with remarks made by Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo, accusing the institution of contradicting itself by commenting on a matter that is still active before the courts.
The Judiciary had urged the public to exercise restraint and avoid commentary that could prejudice the appellate process after Tuju filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Havi questioned the logic of issuing a detailed public explanation on a live case while simultaneously discouraging public discourse.
He argued that such actions risk undermining confidence in the Judiciary’s neutrality and consistency, particularly in high-stakes commercial disputes that have drawn widespread public attention.
The controversy stems from the High Court ruling delivered on March 9, which struck out Tuju’s application seeking to block the auction of properties linked to a long-standing debt.
The court held that the issues raised had already been conclusively determined in previous proceedings, invoking the doctrine of res judicata to bar further litigation on the same matters.
The Judiciary, in its March 18 statement, defended the ruling, noting that the dispute has been litigated across multiple jurisdictions, including a 2019 judgment in the United Kingdom requiring repayment of over USD 15 million.
Kenyan courts have since upheld and recognized that decision, culminating in the dismissal of Tuju’s latest application.
However, Havi’s response escalated the debate beyond the legal merits of the case.
He called on the Judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission to address what he described as “serious allegations” of misconduct against Josephine Mongare, raising concerns about accountability within the judicial system.
His remarks add a new dimension to the ongoing saga, which has already drawn national attention following enforcement actions, including Tuju’s reported eviction from his Karen property.
The dispute continues to highlight broader issues surrounding debt enforcement, judicial transparency, and the limits of public commentary on active court cases.
As the matter now proceeds to the Court of Appeal, the exchange between Havi and the Judiciary shows growing tension between legal practitioners and the institution, even as calls for restraint and adherence to due process remain central to the unfolding proceedings.