The Judiciary has issued a statement seeking to clarify the context of the ongoing legal dispute involving Dari Limited and former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju, following widespread public commentary on a High Court ruling delivered on March 9, 2026.
In a statement dated Wednesday, March 18, 2026, the Judiciary explained that the case arises from attempts by lenders and other related parties to realise securities over two properties owned by the plaintiffs, who owe a longstanding debt obligation. The matter has attracted attention due to the high-profile nature of one of the plaintiffs and the complex history of litigation surrounding the dispute.
According to the Judiciary, the plaintiffs approached the High Court seeking several orders, including injunctions to halt the auction and transfer of the properties pending the determination of the suit. Initially, the court granted interim orders to preserve the status of the properties. However, the defendants subsequently challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction and the procedural propriety of the ongoing proceedings.
The Judiciary noted that the court carefully considered the historical context of the matter. The dispute, it said, has a protracted litigation history dating back several years, including a significant ruling by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales in 2019. That judgment required the repayment of over USD 15 million under a financing agreement, a decision that was later recognised and enforced by the Kenyan High Court in 2020.
The Kenyan Court of Appeal subsequently upheld this recognition in 2023, while the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief that would have halted enforcement of the judgment. This historical legal framework, the Judiciary said, played a crucial role in shaping the court’s decision in the latest application.
The statement also highlighted that previous attempts by the plaintiffs to obtain similar injunctions had been dismissed by the High Court in 2024, further demonstrating the longstanding and contested nature of the case.
In its latest ruling, the High Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ application for an injunction was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This legal principle holds that issues that have already been conclusively determined by competent courts cannot be re-litigated. The Judiciary emphasised that the court found the plaintiffs’ effort to reintroduce substantially similar claims—even when framed in constitutional terms—to be an attempt to reopen concluded matters, which amounted to an abuse of the court process.
As a result, the court struck out the amended plaint and the application for an injunction, and discharged the interim orders that had previously restrained the realisation of the properties. The Judiciary noted that the plaintiffs have since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, signalling that the matter is set to continue through Kenya’s legal system.
In addressing public debate and speculation surrounding the case, Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo urged restraint, calling on all parties and members of the public to allow the appellate court to determine the matter without the interference of parallel discourse that could prejudice the legal process. He stressed the importance of respecting judicial procedures and the independence of the courts in handling complex commercial and constitutional matters.
“The courts operate within the framework of the law, and it is important for the public to understand that ongoing litigation must follow established legal channels,” Ndemo said.
Legal experts observing the case have pointed out that it highlights the challenges involved in enforcing international judgments in Kenya, particularly where there are long-standing debts tied to high-value commercial agreements. The case also demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding established legal principles, including res judicata, which is critical in preventing the abuse of court processes and ensuring that litigants do not repeatedly bring claims that have already been determined.
While the case continues through the appellate system, observers note that it underscores the need for parties involved in complex financial disputes to seek resolution through agreed legal mechanisms rather than repeated litigation, which can be costly, time-consuming, and disruptive.
The Judiciary’s statement comes at a time when there is heightened public interest in cases involving prominent individuals and corporate entities. It serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate reporting and informed commentary, particularly in matters where ongoing legal proceedings may influence outcomes in ways not immediately apparent to the public.
As the appeal process unfolds, the public, stakeholders, and media outlets are urged to exercise caution in interpreting interim developments, focusing instead on the rulings of competent courts. This approach ensures respect for the legal system while allowing the appellate process to run its course without undue influence or speculation.
The Dari Limited and Raphael Tuju case remains a high-profile example of complex financial litigation in Kenya, illustrating the intersection of local and international legal frameworks, and the critical role of the judiciary in enforcing lawful obligations while maintaining procedural integrity.
In a statement dated Wednesday, March 18, 2026, the Judiciary explained that the case arises from attempts by lenders and other related parties to realise securities over two properties owned by the plaintiffs, who owe a longstanding debt obligation. The matter has attracted attention due to the high-profile nature of one of the plaintiffs and the complex history of litigation surrounding the dispute.
According to the Judiciary, the plaintiffs approached the High Court seeking several orders, including injunctions to halt the auction and transfer of the properties pending the determination of the suit. Initially, the court granted interim orders to preserve the status of the properties. However, the defendants subsequently challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction and the procedural propriety of the ongoing proceedings.
The Judiciary noted that the court carefully considered the historical context of the matter. The dispute, it said, has a protracted litigation history dating back several years, including a significant ruling by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales in 2019. That judgment required the repayment of over USD 15 million under a financing agreement, a decision that was later recognised and enforced by the Kenyan High Court in 2020.
The Kenyan Court of Appeal subsequently upheld this recognition in 2023, while the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief that would have halted enforcement of the judgment. This historical legal framework, the Judiciary said, played a crucial role in shaping the court’s decision in the latest application.
The statement also highlighted that previous attempts by the plaintiffs to obtain similar injunctions had been dismissed by the High Court in 2024, further demonstrating the longstanding and contested nature of the case.
In its latest ruling, the High Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ application for an injunction was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This legal principle holds that issues that have already been conclusively determined by competent courts cannot be re-litigated. The Judiciary emphasised that the court found the plaintiffs’ effort to reintroduce substantially similar claims—even when framed in constitutional terms—to be an attempt to reopen concluded matters, which amounted to an abuse of the court process.
As a result, the court struck out the amended plaint and the application for an injunction, and discharged the interim orders that had previously restrained the realisation of the properties. The Judiciary noted that the plaintiffs have since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, signalling that the matter is set to continue through Kenya’s legal system.
In addressing public debate and speculation surrounding the case, Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo urged restraint, calling on all parties and members of the public to allow the appellate court to determine the matter without the interference of parallel discourse that could prejudice the legal process. He stressed the importance of respecting judicial procedures and the independence of the courts in handling complex commercial and constitutional matters.
“The courts operate within the framework of the law, and it is important for the public to understand that ongoing litigation must follow established legal channels,” Ndemo said.
Legal experts observing the case have pointed out that it highlights the challenges involved in enforcing international judgments in Kenya, particularly where there are long-standing debts tied to high-value commercial agreements. The case also demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding established legal principles, including res judicata, which is critical in preventing the abuse of court processes and ensuring that litigants do not repeatedly bring claims that have already been determined.
While the case continues through the appellate system, observers note that it underscores the need for parties involved in complex financial disputes to seek resolution through agreed legal mechanisms rather than repeated litigation, which can be costly, time-consuming, and disruptive.
The Judiciary’s statement comes at a time when there is heightened public interest in cases involving prominent individuals and corporate entities. It serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate reporting and informed commentary, particularly in matters where ongoing legal proceedings may influence outcomes in ways not immediately apparent to the public.
As the appeal process unfolds, the public, stakeholders, and media outlets are urged to exercise caution in interpreting interim developments, focusing instead on the rulings of competent courts. This approach ensures respect for the legal system while allowing the appellate process to run its course without undue influence or speculation.
The Dari Limited and Raphael Tuju case remains a high-profile example of complex financial litigation in Kenya, illustrating the intersection of local and international legal frameworks, and the critical role of the judiciary in enforcing lawful obligations while maintaining procedural integrity.
