Judiciary Statement on Dari Limited and Raphael Tuju Vs EADB and its Auctioneers

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 9th March 2026. Further to our statement of 27th March 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 realize 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 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 USD 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 (i.e. the same issues had already been decided by competent courts). The Court emphasized that the validity of the underlying financial agreement, the amount owed, and the lender's right to realize 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 realization 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.

Hon. Paul Ndemo, EBS,
JUDICIARY SPOKESPERSON