Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju faces the possibility of losing several high-value properties in Nairobi’s Karen area after the High Court declined to immediately halt the execution of a ruling that allows the assets to be auctioned.
In directions issued at the Milimani Law Courts, Justice Josephine Wambui Mong’are declined to grant interim orders sought by Tuju and his company, Dari Limited, which would have temporarily stopped the implementation of a decision delivered on March 9, 2026.
That earlier ruling struck out Tuju’s amended plaint and lifted interim court orders that had previously prevented the defendants from dealing with the disputed assets.
Auction process could proceed
With the previous protective orders now vacated, the respondents Garam Investment Auctioneers and Knight Frank Kenya are no longer barred by court orders from proceeding with actions involving the properties while the case continues.
The dispute centers on several prime real estate assets, including L.R. No. 1055/165, which hosts Tamarind at Dari Business Park, and L.R. No. 11320/3, the location of Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Nairobi.
These properties are considered among the most valuable commercial and hospitality locations in the Karen area.
Tuju seeks appeal
Following the March 9 ruling, Tuju returned to court with an urgent application dated March 11 seeking to halt the execution of the decision and obtain permission to file an appeal.
In his application, Tuju argued that the respondents were now free to auction, transfer or otherwise dispose of the properties through what he described as an irregular and unlawful process.
He warned that unless the court intervened, the planned appeal could be rendered meaningless if the properties were sold before the appellate court considered the case.
Court allows appeal but declines interim stay
Justice Mong’are certified the application as urgent but declined to issue temporary orders stopping the enforcement of the ruling.
Instead, the judge directed Tuju to serve the application on the respondents and ordered that the matter be mentioned before the presiding judge of the division on March 17, 2026, for further directions.
“Since this court is on transfer, let the application be served and be mentioned before the presiding judge of the division on 17/3/2026 for directions,” the judge ruled.
Despite declining the interim stay, the court granted Tuju leave to appeal the March 9 decision.
Background of the dispute
The earlier ruling also vacated orders issued on October 28, 2024, which had restrained the respondents, their agents, or employees from advertising, attaching, selling, or otherwise interfering with ownership of the Karen properties.
Tuju had argued that the intended appeal raises significant legal questions, including claims that the court failed to determine a pending contempt application accusing the respondents of violating earlier court orders.
The case will now return to court on March 17, when the presiding judge will provide further directions on Tuju’s application and the next steps regarding the appeal.
