Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju and his three children have each been fined Sh100,000 for contempt of court, in a legal dispute involving the receivership of Dari Limited, a company that operated a restaurant in Karen, Nairobi.
The High Court ruled that Tuju, alongside Mano Tuju, Alma Tuju and Yma Tuju, deliberately disobeyed orders issued on March 2 and March 13, 2020. It dismissed their application seeking to overturn a July 2020 ruling that found them in contempt.
The court had ordered them to grant court-appointed receiver-managers full access to Dari Limited’s premises and company records to facilitate the takeover of the firm under receivership. However, the receivers were repeatedly denied entry.
The court ordered them to pay the fines within 90 days or face six months in civil jail.
It found that the Tujus failed to justify their disobedience of the March 2020 orders in a receivership dispute between Dari Limited and the East African Development Bank (EADB).
"The plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently explain or purge their contempt, and they must be punished for disobeying court orders," the court ruled.
The case originated from a 2019 commercial dispute involving Dari Limited and S.A.M Company Limited—both associated with Tuju—against EADB and two individuals linked to the bank’s receivership process. The conflict arose from a $9.3 million loan Dari Limited borrowed from EADB to finance a housing project in Karen.
After the loan was defaulted in 2017, the lender sought to recover the debt, which had ballooned to approximately Sh1.6 billion with interest.
EADB in December 2019 appointed receiver-managers Muniu Thoithi and George Weru to take control of Dari Limited’s assets. Tuju contested the move in court, sparking a legal battle over the receivership.
Records indicate that in March 2020, the court permitted the receiver-managers to access Dari Limited’s premises and records to facilitate debt recovery.
However, the receivers reported being repeatedly blocked despite the court orders. In July 2020, the High Court found Tuju and his co-plaintiffs guilty of contempt, ruling that they knowingly defied the directives.
In March 2025, Tuju and his co-plaintiffs filed an application seeking to review or set aside the contempt ruling. They argued that their non-compliance stemmed from a medical emergency after Tuju was injured in a February 2020 road accident near Kijabe.
According to court filings, Tuju was treated at Kijabe Hospital before being airlifted to Karen Hospital and later flown to London’s Wellington Hospital for surgery.
He remained in a medically induced coma for several days and was hospitalised until late March 2020. They blamed the severe medical emergency for the non-compliance.
However, the court rejected these arguments, citing evidence of deliberate defiance during the same period.
Receivers documented multiple instances between March and May 2020, where employees or security personnel barred them from accessing Dari Limited’s premises, well after the court orders were issued.
“The Plaintiffs’ actions during the subject period show deliberate, instructed and active resistance, not passive incapacity. The medical emergency defense, in this context, appears to be a tactical, belated explanation that does not align with the established factual record of contumacious conduct,” the court stated.
While acknowledging that a life-threatening emergency could justify delays, the court found that the evidence suggested the medical explanation was retroactively introduced to excuse pre-existing disobedience.
It noted that Tuju’s legal team had actively filed multiple applications during the alleged incapacitation, undermining claims of inability to comply.
Had the accident truly prevented compliance, the court ruled, it should have been raised during initial contempt proceedings rather than years later.
EADB and other respondents argued that the application to set aside the contempt ruling was excessively delayed, as it was filed 1,684 days after the July 2020 decision. They argued that this appeared to be a last-minute tactic ahead of sentencing.
They maintained that the plaintiffs had systematically defied court orders by obstructing receiver-managers, using police to block access, removing assets, and filing procedural motions.
As such, they argued, the plaintiffs should not be heard until they complied with the court’s directives.
