The Raphael Tuju loan dispute involving East African Development Bank (EADB) and Dari Limited has recently attracted significant public debate. Following widespread commentary and speculation, the East African Development Bank issued an official statement on 16 March 2026 clarifying its position regarding the matter.
This article explains what the bank said, how the statement relates to the court rulings in Kenya, and whether the claims made in the statement are supported by judicial decisions.
What the East African Development Bank Said
In its official position statement, the East African Development Bank explained the origin of the dispute. The bank stated that in 2015, Dari Limited borrowed USD 9,197,084 under a loan facility agreement dated 10 April 2015.
The bank explained: “In 2015, Dari Limited – a company registered in the Republic of Kenya – borrowed USD 9,197,084 from the EADB under a loan facility agreement dated 10th April 2015.” According to the bank, the loan was secured by properties owned by the directors and shareholders of Dari Limited in Nairobi.
The statement notes: “As security for the facility, Dari Limited shareholders and directors pledged various properties they owned in Nairobi which were subsequently charged to the Bank.” This corresponds with court records confirming that the loan was secured by properties including Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen and Tamarind Karen / Dari Business Park property
Confirmation That the Loan Was Disbursed
The bank further clarified that the loan was drawn in July 2015 after the security documents were registered.
The statement reads: “Subsequently, the loan was drawn on the 29th of July 2015 pursuant to the terms of the Facility Agreement.” This detail is important because some public commentary suggested that the borrower did not receive the full amount. However, the bank’s statement asserts that the loan was fully drawn according to the agreement.
When the Loan Went Into Default
The bank stated that the loan fell into default shortly after. According to the statement: “As of the second quarter of 2016, the loan was in default.” The bank indicated that several demand notices were later issued in November 2017, which were allegedly not honoured.
Why the Case Was Filed in the United Kingdom
The bank explained that the loan agreement specified that disputes would be determined by courts in England.
The statement confirms: “Following the default on the loan repayment… the EADB was compelled to file proceedings in the High Court of Justice in England, United Kingdom – the forum and the governing law provided for and agreed under the Facility Agreement.” This confirms that the choice of jurisdiction was part of the loan contract itself.The case was therefore filed in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court).
Judgment by the UK Court
The bank stated that the English court delivered judgment on 19 June 2019. According to the statement: “On the 19th of June 2019, the Bank obtained judgment for the sum of USD 15,162,320.95.”
This amount included:
- the principal loan
- accumulated interest
- penalties under the facility agreement
Confirmation by Kenyan Courts
The bank further noted that the UK judgment was later recognized in Kenya. The statement says: “The High Court in Nairobi later recognized and confirmed the U.K. judgment against Dari Limited on 13th February 2020.”
Court rulings confirm this. In East African Development Bank v Dari Limited & Others (HCCC No. 1 of 2020), the High Court allowed the registration of the foreign judgment. The court stated that once registered: “The foreign judgment shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of this court.” This meant that the lender could enforce the judgment using Kenyan legal mechanisms.
Court of Appeal Confirmation
The bank’s statement also refers to the decision of the Court of Appeal. The statement notes that the UK judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Nairobi on 20 April 2023. This corresponds with the appellate ruling confirming that the foreign judgment was properly recognized in Kenya.
Auction of the Ngong Road Property
The bank also confirmed that one of the charged properties had already been sold. According to the statement: “Under the terms of the Charge, the Bank successfully auctioned the Ngong Road property that had been pledged by Dari Limited as security on the 1st of October 2024.” The bank said the auction occurred after following all required legal procedures. It further noted that: “At the time, there were no court orders preventing the sale of the property at the auction.”
Later Court Proceedings
After the auction, Dari Limited filed another suit challenging the valuation of the property. However, the High Court later struck out the case. The bank’s statement notes: “In a substantive ruling delivered on the 9th of March 2026, the High Court in Nairobi struck out the suit and vacated the interim orders.” Court rulings show that the judge found the litigation to be repetitive and barred by legal principles such as res judicata.
Final Position of the Bank
The bank concluded its statement by criticizing what it described as misinformation surrounding the dispute. It stated: “The EADB distances itself from the ongoing public theatre of the borrower’s distortion of facts and disinformation.” The bank emphasized that it remains guided by:
- the loan agreement
- court rulings
- the rule of law
What the Court Record Shows
When the bank’s statement is compared with court rulings, several key facts align:
- A loan facility was granted in 2015.
- The loan was secured by Nairobi properties.
- The borrower allegedly defaulted.
- The bank sued in England based on the contract.
- The UK court entered judgment in 2019.
- Kenyan courts recognized the judgment in 2020.
- The Court of Appeal confirmed enforcement in 2023.
- Later litigation attempts were dismissed in 2026.
Conclusion
The EADB statement largely reflects the sequence of events recorded in court judgments.
The courts have consistently held that the dispute over the loan was already determined by the English court and that Kenyan courts were only dealing with the enforcement of that judgment.
As a result, the bank has been allowed to proceed with recovery of the debt through the charged properties.
Understanding the court record helps clarify the legal issues behind the controversy and provides a clearer picture of how the dispute reached its current stage.
Discover more from Luvisia Digital
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
