Uhuru's cousin Kung'u Muigai/SCREENGRAB
The Judiciary has refuted recent allegations by former President Uhuru Kenyatta's cousin, Captain Kung’u Muigai, concerning the handling of the long-running case of Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd and Muiri Coffee Estate Ltd versus Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB).
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo said the institution had noted with concern the remarks made suggesting misconduct by judges who presided over the matter.
He clarified that no competent body has ever found evidence of impropriety in relation to the case.
"We categorically refute any suggestion of misconduct by judges who presided over these matters. No competent forum has ever found evidence of wrongdoing or corruption," Spokesperson Ndemo stated.
According to the statement, the commercial dispute began in 1989 when KCB advanced a loan facility to Benjoh Amalgamated Limited, which was secured through charges on company property and a guarantee by Muiri Coffee Estate Ltd.
Following the default, the bank sought to exercise its statutory power of sale.
The parties subsequently entered into a consent order in May 1992 before Justice Erastus Githinji (as he then was), in which the borrower admitted indebtedness and undertook to repay the outstanding amounts.
The Court of Appeal later affirmed the consent in 1998, describing it as valid and binding.
"On 10 March 1998, the Court of Appeal, then the apex court, in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1997, confirmed that the consent order was valid and binding, and found no evidence of fraud or illegality. This determination was final and ought to have ended the litigation,” the statement read.
Since then, the Judiciary noted, several additional suits and applications were filed by the borrowers in different courts seeking to halt the bank’s recovery process.
These were dismissed on grounds of res judicata, with the courts reiterating that the substantive issues had been conclusively settled in earlier proceedings.
The statement further highlighted a 2018 Court of Appeal decision, which dismissed another challenge and noted that more than 14 suits had been filed over a period of two decades.
That ruling described the repeated litigation as an abuse of the court process.
"Across all levels of the courts, the record shows consistent and reasoned application of settled principles: res judicata, the enforceability of consent judgments, and a chargee’s statutory power of sale," read part of the statement.
On allegations of judicial misconduct, the Judiciary said the matter had also been presented to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which independently reviewed the complaints but found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the judges involved.
Muigai had previously claimed that after his petition was lodged with the JSC and sat for about a year without a hearing, he was informed in writing that judges are entitled to exercise judicial discretion.
Ndemo reaffirmed that the Judiciary remains committed to impartial decision-making and the principle of finality in litigation.
He urged members of the public to respect court judgments and to use lawful avenues of redress when dissatisfied with outcomes.
The Judiciary concluded by cautioning that unsubstantiated claims risk undermining public confidence in the justice system and the broader constitutional order.
