The Raphael Tuju auction case has become one of the most discussed commercial disputes in Kenya. Many Kenyans have seen headlines about the possible auction of properties associated with Raphael Tuju, but few understand the actual legal history behind the dispute.
This article provides verified facts from court rulings, explaining the case step-by-step from the 2015 loan agreement to the 2026 court ruling that allowed the auction to proceed.
The goal is simple: provide factual information based on court judgments rather than speculation or propaganda.
Facts About Tuju’s Case From Start to the End
Loan Agreement (2015)
Parties Involved
Borrower: Dari Limited
Guarantors: Raphael Tuju, Mano Tuju, Alma Tuju, Yma Tuju and S.A.M Company Limited
Lender: East African Development Bank
Transaction
A Facility Agreement dated 10 April 2015 was entered into. Under this agreement the EADB advanced a loan facility to Dari Limited.
Security for the Loan
Properties in Karen, Nairobi were charged as collateral:
- LR No. 11320/3 – Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary
- LR No. 1055/165 – Tamarind Karen / Dari Business Park
These properties were used as security for the loan in case of default.
Default on the Loan
According to court records Dari Limited allegedly failed to repay the loan as agreed. The lender therefore began legal recovery proceedings.
Judgment in the United Kingdom (2019)
The lender filed a case in the High Court of Justice (Commercial Court). On 19 June 2019, the court issued summary judgment against the borrower and guarantors.
Amount Awarded: USD 15,162,320.95 plus costs and interest. Summary judgment means the court concluded that there was no realistic defence requiring a full trial.
Enforcement of the UK Judgment in Kenya (2020)
Case: East African Development Bank v Dari Limited & Others (HCCC No. 1 of 2020)
The lender applied in the Kenyan High Court to:
- Recognize the English judgment
- Register the judgment
- Enforce it in Kenya under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act
Court Decision: 7 January 2020 – Justice Okwany
The High Court ruled that:
- The UK judgment was valid
- The judgment could be registered in Kenya
- Enforcement could proceed
The court explained that once registered,“The foreign judgment shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of this court.”This meant the lender could recover the debt through Kenyan enforcement mechanisms, including sale of charged property.
Appointment of Receivers and Attempts to Realize Security (2020)
After registration of the judgment the EADB appointed receivers over the secured properties. The bank attempted to take possession of the Karen properties.
Allegations of Obstruction
The bank alleged that the Tuju family blocked receivers from accessing the properties. Because of this, the court issued orders requiring cooperation. The Court Orders issued on 2 March 2020 and 13 March 2020. These orders required the defendants to allow receivers access to the property.
Contempt Proceedings (2020)
Case: Commercial Case E469 of 2019
The court found that the defendants had failed to comply with earlier court orders.
Ruling: 30 July 2020 – Justice Mary Kasango
The court ordered the defendants to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of court. This marked a major escalation in the dispute.
Attempts to Challenge the Judge (Recusal Application)
The defendants filed an application seeking for the Recusal of Justice Mary Kasango and reassignment of the case to another judge. Grounds alleging Bias by the judge and unfair handling of the proceedings. A complaint was also reportedly filed with the Judicial Service Commission.
Court Decision
The request was dismissed. The court held that disagreement with judicial rulings is not a valid reason to remove a judge from a case.
Appeals Against Enforcement of the UK Judgment
Case:Dari Limited & Others v East African Development Bank
Court of Appeal Decision: 20 April 2023
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling and confirmed that the UK judgment was valid
and that the judgment could be enforced in Kenya.
Supreme Court Proceedings
The Tuju side later approached the Supreme Court seeking conservatory orders. However, the Supreme Court declined to grant a stay order. This allowed enforcement proceedings to continue.
Further Litigation to Stop the Auction (2024)
Case:Dari Limited & Others v Knight Frank Valuers & Others
Parties sued included: Knight Frank, Valuers, EADB, Auctioneers
Bank of Africa and Chief Land Registrar
Objective: The plaintiffs sought to stop the auction of the Karen properties.
Court Action
On 28 October 2024, the court temporarily granted an ex-parte injunction stopping the auction.
Bank’s Response
The lender argued that the suit should be dismissed because:
- The court lacked jurisdiction
- The matter was res judicata
- The plaintiffs were re-litigating issues already decided by courts
Multiple Additional Suits (2025)
Several additional applications were filed seeking to:
- Commit bank officials to civil jail
- Reverse property transfers
- Involve the Chief Land Registrar
- Block registration of property transfers
The bank argued that these cases were delaying tactics designed to prevent enforcement of the judgment.
High Court Analysis
When reviewing the entire litigation history, the court made several key findings:
- The loan dispute had already been determined in England
- Kenyan courts had already recognized the judgment
- The Court of Appeal had confirmed enforcement
- The Supreme Court declined to intervene
The court concluded that:
- The debt was final and binding
- The lender had a lawful right to enforce the security
Final Ruling (9 March 2026)
Case:Dari Limited & Others v Knight Frank Valuers & Others
Key Findings
The court held that:
- The plaintiffs repeatedly filed new injunction applications
- The issues raised had already been decided
- The cases were res judicata
- The litigation amounted to abuse of court process
The judge observed that litigation must come to an end and courts cannot allow parties to continuously reopen decided matters.
Orders Issued by the Court
The court ordered that:
• The amended plaint be struck out
• All interim injunctions be vacated
• Enforcement proceedings may continue
• Costs be awarded against the plaintiffs
Result: Auction of Tuju Properties
Following the 2026 ruling:
- All legal barriers stopping enforcement were removed.
- The lender is legally allowed to proceed with auction of the Karen properties.
Key Legal Lessons From the Tuju Case
The Tuju case highlights several important principles of law:
- International loan agreements may designate foreign courts and foreign law.
- Foreign judgments can be recognized and enforced in Kenya.
- The doctrine of res judicata prevents repeated litigation.
- Courts may strike out cases that amount to abuse of judicial process.
Conclusion
The Raphael Tuju auction case is ultimately a commercial loan enforcement dispute rather than a political issue.
The UK court determined the existence of the debt. Kenyan courts were not retrying that dispute. Instead, they were deciding whether the foreign judgment could be recognized and enforced under Kenyan law.
After years of litigation, the courts concluded that the lender has the legal right to enforce the judgment and recover the debt through the charged properties.
Understanding the legal process behind the case helps separate court-verified facts from public speculation.
Discover more from Luvisia Digital
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
