NAIROBI, Kenya — The Judiciary of Kenya has issued a detailed clarification on the high-profile dispute involving Raphael Tuju and Dari Limited, following public debate over a ruling delivered on March 9, 2026.
In a statement dated March 18, Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo said the case arises from efforts by lenders to realise securities over two properties owned by the plaintiffs in connection with a long-standing debt obligation.
According to the Judiciary, the plaintiffs had moved to the High Court seeking injunctions to stop the auction and transfer of the properties pending the determination of the case.
While interim orders were initially granted, the defendants challenged both the court’s jurisdiction and the propriety of the proceedings.
The court found that the dispute has a prolonged litigation history, including a final judgment issued by the High Court of Justice in 2019, which required repayment of more than $15 million under a financing agreement.
That judgment was subsequently recognised and enforced by the Kenyan High Court in 2020 and upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2023. The Supreme Court of Kenya later declined to grant interim relief to halt enforcement.
The Judiciary further noted that similar attempts by the plaintiffs to secure injunctive relief had been dismissed in 2024, reinforcing the position that the matter had already been conclusively determined.
In its March 9 ruling, the court held that the latest application was barred by the legal doctrine of res judicata, which prevents courts from re-hearing issues that have already been decided by competent courts.
“The Court found that reintroducing substantially similar claims, even if framed in constitutional terms, amounted to an attempt to re-open concluded matters and constituted an abuse of the court process,” the statement said.
As a result, the court struck out the amended plaint and the application for injunction, and lifted interim orders that had temporarily blocked the realisation of the properties.
The plaintiffs have since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. Ndemo urged restraint in public commentary, calling on parties to allow the appellate process to proceed without interference that could prejudice the outcome.
