Judiciary Responds to Bribery Allegations Made by Uhuru’s Cousin

The Judiciary has dismissed allegations by former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s cousin, Captain (Rtd.) Kung’u Muigai, that judges were bribed in a decades-long commercial dispute, terming the claims malicious and baseless.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo said no credible evidence of misconduct has ever been produced and described the allegations as unfair, especially since some of the judges mentioned have since retired or passed away.
The dispute traces back more than three decades to a loan facility that was secured by land. Following the default, the matter was settled in court through a consent order where the borrower admitted indebtedness and agreed to repay within a set timeframe. When repayment was not made, the lender moved to enforce its security.
However, the borrowers filed successive suits to stop enforcement, which were repeatedly dismissed because the matter had already been conclusively settled by the consent judgment.
In 1998, the Court of Appeal, then the country’s highest court, upheld the consent as valid and binding, ruling that no fraud or illegality had been established, with thecourt emphasising that the litigation should come to an end.
Despite this, further suits and applications were filed in subsequent years before the High Court, Court of Appeal, and later the Supreme Court.
All were dismissed as res judicata (having settled), with the courts reiterating that the substance of the dispute had already been determined. In 2018, the Court of Appeal noted that more than 14 cases had been filed over two decades, characterising the continued litigation as worrying.
Muigai on Tuesday alleged that judges who ruled against him were bribed, while those who sided with him were not. He went as far as naming several judges across different courts in his claims, some of whom hold senior positions in the litigation corridors.
The Judiciary countered that similar allegations had previously been presented to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which reviewed the complaints and found no evidence of impropriety. It stressed that dissatisfaction with rulings does not equate to proof of corruption.
“It must be emphasised that dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes is not proof of misconduct. It is mischievous, to say the least, of Captain (Rtd) Muigai to allege that all the judges who handled his matters and made orders against his companies were bribed, and those who agreed with him were not corrupted,” the statement by Ndemo read in part.
Ndemo stated that all corruption claims are treated seriously but must be supported by credible evidence. “Unfounded allegations that impugn judicial integrity only serve to undermine public confidence in our courts,” he stated.
The Judiciary,which has been under heavy criticism from a section of lawyers, reaffirmed its commitment to impartiality, respect for the rule of law, and finality in litigation, urging parties to use lawful avenues of appeal and review instead of disinformation campaigns that weaken trust in the justice system.