A protracted legal battle between business tycoon Suresh Nanalal Kantaria and his estranged wife, Mradula Kantaria, has taken a dramatic turn after the High Court ruled that the case raises substantial constitutional questions requiring the intervention of Chief Justice Martha Koome.
Justice Stephen Riechi directed that the dispute — centred on the contested auction of Mr Kantaria’s three prime Nairobi properties valued at Sh242.6 million — be referred to the Chief Justice for the empanelling of a three-judge bench.
The ruling follows claims by Mr Kantaria that his rights to property, a fair hearing, and livelihood were violated during the enforcement of a decade-old divorce decree.
The dispute stems from a 2015 Court of Appeal judgment that ordered Mr Kantaria to pay his ex-wife and daughter monthly maintenance of Sh350,000 and transfer 25 percent ownership of three properties located in United Nations Crescent, Gigiri, and South Nairobi.
Mr Kantaria argues that non-compliance resulted from unresolved appeals, while Ms Mradula insists he deliberately frustrated court orders.
In January 2025, the properties were auctioned for Sh181.5 million, a figure Mr Kantaria claims was “fraudulently undervalued,” prompting him to file an urgent application to stop the sale. He maintains that the properties were worth over Sh242.6 million.
He accused the High Court Family Division of ignoring his pending appeals and violating his constitutional rights under Articles 26 (right to life), 40 (right to property), and 50 (right to a fair hearing).
Justice Riechi dismissed preliminary objections by Ms Mradula’s lawyers, who argued that the matter had already been adjudicated and that judicial officers named as respondents enjoyed immunity.
The judge held that the issues required evidentiary examination, noting that Mr Kantaria was alleging systemic denial of justice. He observed that these were not mere procedural issues but substantive concerns involving constitutional interpretation.
“I am satisfied that the issues raised here raise substantial questions of law as contemplated under Article 165(4), as read with clauses (3)(b) and (d) of Article 165 of the Constitution as to justify the empanelling of a bench of uneven number of judges of this court of not less than three, assigned by the Chief Justice,” said Justice Riechi.
The case could redefine how courts balance divorce settlements with constitutional rights.
Citing Article 165(4), Justice Riechi emphasised that the case met the threshold for a three-judge bench given its implications for property rights.
The central question is whether auctioning assets during pending appeals violates due process. The matter also raises issues of judicial accountability, with Mr Kantaria alleging bias and delays within the High Court Family Division.
Ms Mradula’s lawyers maintain that the auction was lawful, arising from a 2017 ruling by Justice William Musyoka, and accuse Mr Kantaria of “forum shopping” to evade compliance.
Conversely, Mr Kantaria’s lawyers argue that the sale amounted to “judicial overreach” that disregarded active appeals. In his affidavits, the tycoon — now in his 70s — lamented that losing the properties would leave him destitute.
His lawyers told the court that the assets represented his life’s work, arguing that “Their forced sale amounts to an economic death sentence.”
Mr Kantaria further claimed that at his age, he cannot rebuild his wealth and that “despite knowing this, the respondents have sentenced him to death.”
He added that the sale occurred due to violations of his rights and a suspension of the Doctrine of Precedent by the Family Division, which denied him the right to be heard.
The Chief Justice is expected to appoint a bench to determine whether the Family Division erred by allowing the auction despite pending appeals, and to address the broader issue of balancing enforcement of court orders with the protection of constitutional rights.
The outcome could set a precedent for similar disputes in long-running divorce cases.
The Kantarias were married on March 16, 1974, and their marriage was dissolved on February 18, 1999, after Ms Mradula successfully filed for divorce.
Following the annulment of their marriage in 2005, the court initially ordered Mr Kantaria to pay her Sh100 million, but this was later set aside and replaced with a monthly payment of Sh350,000, effective May 5, 2015, and payable on the fifth day of each subsequent month until her death or remarriage.
