NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has issued an order restraining businessman Kung’u Muigai from publishing, circulating, or repeating allegations that Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola received a bribe to influence a judicial decision, pending the hearing and determination of a defamation suit.
The order arises from an application dated September 30, 2025, in which Justice Lenaola sued Muigai for defamation over statements made on social media and other digital platforms alleging judicial corruption.
The court found that the continued publication of the claims posed a real risk of irreparable harm to the judge’s reputation and to public confidence in the administration of justice.
According to court documents, Justice Lenaola accused Muigai of falsely claiming that he received Sh1 million to deliver an adverse judgment in a case involving the businessman and a company linked to him.
The judge said the statements were made during interviews and disseminated widely online, including on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, WhatsApp, and X (formerly Twitter), reaching a broad audience and attracting public commentary.
In his supporting affidavit, Justice Lenaola told the court that the allegations were “defamatory, malicious and baseless,” and were calculated to portray him as a corrupt judicial officer who accepts bribes. He argued that the claims undermined his personal integrity, professional standing, and the credibility of the Judiciary as an independent constitutional organ.
To support his application, the judge filed electronic and documentary evidence, including videos stored on a flash disk, photographs, screenshots of online posts, and print media extracts. The electronic material was accompanied by a certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act, attesting to its authenticity and admissibility.
Justice Lenaola further stated that the allegations relate to a case he handled several years ago while serving as a High Court judge, in which Muigai and his company were unsuccessful.
He maintained that the claims resurfaced long after the conclusion of the case and had no factual basis, but were instead motivated by dissatisfaction with the court’s decision.
In response, Muigai admitted making the statements complained of but insisted they were true. In his pleadings, he reiterated the bribery allegations and indicated that he would seek to prove them during the hearing of the defamation suit.
The High Court, however, held that at this interlocutory stage, it was necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent further publication of the contested statements until the matter is fully heard and determined.
The court noted that unrestrained circulation of allegations of judicial bribery, if unproven, risked serious damage not only to the individual judge but also to public trust in the justice system.
The defamation suit remains pending, with the court expected to issue further directions on the hearing. The case adds to ongoing debates around freedom of expression, accountability, and the limits of public commentary on judicial officers, particularly where allegations of corruption are made without prior determination by investigative or oversight bodies.
