What You Need to Know
The High Court dismissed Raphael Tuju’s attempt to halt the sale of his Dari Limited property, leading to an appeal. The Judiciary issued a statement addressing public interest in the case, which involves a Sh2.2 billion bank loan default and a history of litigation across multiple jurisdictions. Tuju’s family faced eviction amid the ongoing legal battle.
Africa-Press – Kenya. On March 9, 2026, the High Court dismissed Tuju’s bid to stop the sale of his Dari Limited property but he appealed the decision.The Judiciary has issued a statement clarifying issues surrounding court rulings in a property dispute between former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju and auctioneers arising from an alleged default on a Sh2.2 billion bank loan.
Through spokesperson Paul Ndemo, the Judiciary said the statement was issued in response to the public interest the case has generated and the ongoing debate surrounding the matter.
On March 9, 2026, the High Court dismissed Tuju’s bid to stop the sale of his Dari Limited property, sparking a dramatic series of events, including the alleged night eviction of his family and tenants from Tamarind Karen/Dari Business Park and Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary by masked police officers in unmarked police vehicles.
Tuju said he will not give up on the property and obtained a court order allowing him to appeal the High Court ruling.
Below is the full statement from the Judiciary on the matter:
The Judiciary notes the public interest and commentary following the delivery of the ruling in Dari Limited & Raphael Tuju vs Garam Investment Auctioneers, Knight Frank Valuers Ltd & Others (HCCOMM/E636/2024) on March 9, 2026.
Further to our statement of March 27, 2025, and in keeping with our constitutional commitment to transparency, accountability, and public understanding of judicial processes, we issue this statement to clarify the context and legal issues in the matter.
The dispute arises from efforts by lenders and associated parties to realise securities over two properties owned by the plaintiffs following a long-standing debt obligation.
The plaintiffs moved to the High Court seeking, among other reliefs, injunctive orders to stop the auction and transfer of the properties pending the determination of the suit.
At the initial stage, the court granted interim orders to preserve the properties pending inter parties hearing.
The defendants subsequently challenged the jurisdiction of the court and the propriety of the proceedings, seeking to set aside those interim orders and to strike out the suit.
Upon consideration of the pleadings, affidavits and submissions, the court found that the dispute has a protracted litigation history spanning multiple jurisdictions and levels of courts.
This includes a final judgment issued by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales in 2019 requiring repayment of over $15 million under a financing agreement, recognition and enforcement of that judgment by the Kenyan High Court in 2020, affirmation by the Court of Appeal in 2023, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant interim relief to halt enforcement.
The court further noted that earlier attempts by the plaintiffs to obtain similar injunctive relief had already been considered and dismissed by the High court in 2024.
Against this background, the court held that the plaintiffs’ application for injunction reproduced, in substance and effect, issues that had already been litigated and conclusively determined.
The application was therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata (the same issues had already been decided by competent courts).
The court emphasised that the validity of the underlying financial agreement, the amount owed, and the lender’s right to realise the secured properties had already been settled by the High Court of Justice in England and Wales in 2019.
It further found that the reintroduction of substantially similar claims, albeit framed in constitutional terms, amounted to an attempt to re-open concluded matters and thus constituted an abuse of the court process.
The court also reiterated that it cannot sit on appeal over decisions of courts of concurrent or superior jurisdiction, nor can it re-litigate matters that have been finally determined.
In light of these findings, the court allowed the defendants’ applications challenging the proceedings, struck out the plaintiffs amended plaint and the application for injunction and discharged all interim orders that had previously restrained the realisation of the properties.
The plaintiffs have since lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Accordingly, 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 that may prejudice or undermine the due administration of justice.
The case surrounding Raphael Tuju’s Dari Limited property has roots in a complex financial dispute involving a Sh2.2 billion loan. The High Court’s ruling on March 9, 2026, followed a series of legal proceedings that included a judgment from the High Court of Justice in England and Wales in 2019, which mandated repayment of over $15 million. This long-standing litigation has seen multiple appeals and decisions across various courts, culminating in the recent dismissal of Tuju’s injunction application by the Kenyan High Court.
