Kenya’s Judiciary has shifted focus to the integrity of the appellate process in the high-profile Dari Limited dispute, urging restraint from the public and stakeholders following renewed debate over the case.
In a statement issued on March 18, 2026, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo emphasised the need to protect the independence of the courts as the matter transitions to the next stage of litigation.
“The Judiciary notes the public interest and commentary following the delivery of the ruling… and in keeping with our constitutional commitment to transparency… we issue this statement to clarify the context and legal issues in the matter,” Ndemo said.
The case involves Dari Limited and businessman Raphael Tuju, who had sought to block the auction of two properties tied to a long-standing debt dispute.
The High Court dismissed their application earlier this month, paving the way for lenders to proceed with the realization of the securities.
However, the Judiciary’s latest statement places particular emphasis on developments after the ruling, confirming that the plaintiffs have already moved to the Court of Appeal of Kenya to challenge the decision.
“Accordingly, in order to safeguard the integrity of the ongoing judicial process and uphold the rule of law, we urge all parties to exercise restraint and allow the appellate court to determine the matter without parallel discourse,” Ndemo said.
The Judiciary cautioned that excessive public commentary, especially on matters actively before the courts, risks undermining due process and could prejudice fair adjudication.
The statement comes amid heightened attention on the case, which has drawn public and political interest due to its financial scale and the profile of the parties involved.
The dispute traces back to a financing agreement that resulted in a judgment of over $15 million issued by the High Court of Justice in 2019.
That judgment has since been recognised locally by the High Court of Kenya and upheld by both the Court of Appeal of Kenya and the Supreme Court of Kenya, effectively affirming the lenders’ right to enforce the debt.
While the High Court’s latest ruling dealt primarily with procedural issues, including the doctrine of res judicata, the Judiciary’s communication underscores a broader concern: maintaining confidence in the legal system by ensuring disputes are resolved strictly within established judicial channels.
Legal observers say such statements are rare but significant, particularly when cases generate sustained public discourse.
By addressing the matter directly, the Judiciary appears keen to strike a balance between transparency and the need to insulate ongoing proceedings from external pressure.
Ndemo reiterated that the courts remain the appropriate forum for resolving disputes.
“We urge all parties to allow the appellate process to run its course,” he said, reinforcing the Judiciary’s stance that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done through proper legal mechanisms.
As the case now heads to the appellate stage, attention will shift to how the higher court interprets both procedural and substantive issues raised by the plaintiffs.
The Judiciary’s appeal for restraint signals its determination to safeguard due process, even as public scrutiny intensifies around one of the country’s most closely watched commercial disputes.