NAIROBI, Kenya – Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola has filed a defamation suit against businessman Kung’u Muigai, a cousin of former President Uhuru Kenyatta, over claims linking him to bribery and the 2004 murder of lawyer Patrick Kyalo.
The case, now before Justice Nixon Sifuna at the Milimani High Court, reopens one of Kenya’s longest-running legal sagas surrounding a 443-acre coffee estate in Juja, Kiambu County, owned by Muiri Coffee Estates Ltd.
The property, which was auctioned by Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) to recover debts owed by Muigai’s firm and Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd, has been at the centre of multiple suits since the early 1990s.
In court filings, Justice Lenaola accuses Muigai of “maliciously spreading falsehoods” that he took a Sh1 million bribe to favour KCB in his 2004 ruling.
Muigai, represented by lawyer Nelson Havi, maintains that the decision was rooted in a forged consent order allegedly crafted to benefit the bank, a claim Lenaola has termed defamatory, reckless, and intended to “erode public confidence in the Judiciary.”
Legal experts note that the case touches on sensitive ground: the balance between judicial integrity and the constitutional right to free expression.
“If courts side with Lenaola, it could set a precedent affirming that judges, too, can defend their reputation without undermining judicial independence,” said a senior legal analyst who requested anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
Lenaola’s lawyers have argued that no judicial officer should “be forced to endure character assassination under the guise of public scrutiny,” describing the allegations as a calculated smear campaign.
The case also revives the unsolved murder of lawyer Kyalo, who was gunned down in Nairobi two decades ago.
Muigai has controversially tied the killing to the Juja land dispute, allegations Lenaola flatly denies, terming them “baseless, defamatory and malicious.”
The defamation suit arrives at a time when Kenya’s Judiciary is under heightened scrutiny from political actors and the public alike.
In recent months, several judges have faced online harassment following controversial rulings, prompting the Judicial Service Commission to warn against “digital vigilantism” targeting judicial officers.
Justice Sifuna is expected to issue preliminary directions later this month as the case continues to draw national attention.
The outcome, observers say, could shape future boundaries between judicial accountability, freedom of expression, and the personal rights of judges to seek redress when defamed.
