-

JUDICIARY CLEARS AIR ON KUNG'U MUIGAI CLAIM IN CASE TIED TO SLAIN LAWYER MBOBU

Walter Ochola September 10, 2025, 7:54 a.m. News
JUDICIARY CLEARS AIR ON KUNG'U MUIGAI CLAIM IN CASE TIED TO SLAIN LAWYER MBOBU

The Judiciary has responded to allegations by Captain Kung’u Muigai, a retired military officer, Director at Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd, and cousin of former President Uhuru Kenyatta, on corrupt judges. Muigai, in a video widely circulated online, claimed that corrupt judges had colluded with Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) to frustrate his land case.
The long-running dispute, in which the late lawyer Kyalo Mbobu once represented Muigai before his assassination in Karen on Tuesday, September 9, has been ongoing for more than three decades.
However, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo dismissed the accusations from Muigai as baseless and misleading, insisting that he had failed to provide credible evidence of wrongdoing in the case.
“We categorically refute that any incompetent form has ever found evidence of wrongdoing or corruption. Mr. Muigai has not produced credible proof to substantiate his claims.
“Posing as bringing evidence after but reeks of bad faith, malice and a camouflaged agenda,” the Judiciary stated.
According to the statement, the dispute dates back to 1988 when KCB extended a commercial loan to Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd, secured by properties owned by Muiri Coffee Estate Ltd.
However, after default, the bank moved to auction the land. On May 4, 1992, the parties recorded a consent order before Justice Nambuye, requiring the borrowers to settle the outstanding debt by July 31 of that year. Consequently, when they failed to meet the deadline, KCB proceeded with plans to sell the properties.
The Judiciary noted that despite repeated suits filed by the borrowers to halt the auction, the 1992 consent order had already settled the matter.
“On 10 March 1998, the Court of Appeal, then the apex court, in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1987, confirmed that the consent order was final and binding.
“The court held that any attempt to have it reviewed or set aside would amount to an abuse of court process,” the statement read.

Related Post

Comments (0)

Your email will not be displayed publicly

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!