NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 18 — The Judiciary has urged restraint in public discourse surrounding the high-profile Dari Limited case involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju, following a High Court ruling that declined to halt the auction of contested properties on grounds that the matter had already been conclusively determined.
In a clarification coming against the backdrop of a contested auction of the Karen-based Dari property in October 2024 for Sh450 million to Ultra Eureka Limited, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo Wedmesday said the court struck out the plaintiffs’ application after finding it amounted to re-litigation of issues previously settled across multiple courts, invoking the doctrine of res judicata.
The dispute stems from efforts by lenders to realise securities over two properties owned by Dari Limited and Tuju, tied to a long-standing debt obligation exceeding $15 million.
The plaintiffs had moved to the High Court seeking injunctive orders to stop the auction and transfer of the properties pending determination of the suit.
While the court had initially granted interim orders preserving the properties, the defendants challenged both the court’s jurisdiction and the substance of the case, seeking to set aside the orders and strike out the suit.
Upon review, the court found the matter had a protracted litigation history, including a 2019 judgment by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales ordering repayment of the debt.
‘Reproduced application’
The Kenyan High Court subsequently recognised the decision in 2020 and upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2023.
The decision remained in place after the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief.
The Judiciary said earlier attempts to secure similar injunctive relief had also been dismissed by the High Court in 2024.
“Against this background, the court held that the plaintiffs’ application reproduced, in substance and effect, issues that had already been litigated and conclusively determined,” Ndemo, who serves as the Deputy Registrar of the Judiciary stated.
He added that reframing the claims as constitutional questions did not change their substance, and instead constituted an abuse of the court process.
“The court cannot sit on appeal over decisions of courts of concurrent or superior jurisdiction, nor can it re-litigate matters that have been finally determined,” Ndemo said.
As a result, the court allowed the defendants’ applications, struck out the amended plaint and the injunction request, and discharged all interim orders that had previously blocked the realisation of the properties.
The Judiciary confirmed that Tuju had since lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
“In order to safeguard the integrity of the ongoing judicial process and uphold the rule of law, we urge all parties to exercise restraint and allow the appellate court to determine the matter without parallel discourse,” Ndemo appealed.