Court told contested Dari property was sold, transferred before any injunction

Tight security outside Dari Business Park on March 23, 2026./FILE

Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju/ENOS TECHE

The High Court has heard that the disputed Dari property linked to former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju was sold and transferred before any injunction was issued, as parties clashed over a stay application in an ongoing property dispute.

During the substantive hearing before Justice Moses Ado on Tuesday, the 10th defendant, Ultra Eureka Limited, argued that it lawfully purchased the contested property through a public auction in October 2024 and has since taken possession.

Through its submissions, the company said the property in Karen associated with Dari Limited, was sold on October 1, 2024 pursuant to the statutory power of sale exercised by the second defendant, Knight Frank valuers limited.

The purported buyer told the court that interim orders stopping the auction were only issued several weeks later, on October 28, 2024.

This, according to their argument, means the sale had already taken place and transfer documents were processed before any injunction could stop the transaction.

Ultra Eureka maintained that the property has already been transferred into its name and possession taken, arguing that there is nothing left for the court to stay.

“The property was sold in a public auction and transferred. When interim orders were vacated, we took possession. There is nothing to say because the property is no longer in the hands of the plaintiffs,— Tuju, his family and Dari Limited,” the court heard from their counsel.

They were responding to a fresh application by Tuju which seeks to suspend the execution of the March 9 ruling delivered by Justice Josephine Mongare pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal.

Justice Mongare had issued a ruling striking out the amended plaint filed by Raphael Tuju and Dari Limited, lifting interim orders that had restrained defendants from dealing with the disputed property.

Tuju has since moved to court seeking a stay of execution of the ruling pending appeal.

In it's submissions, the company further submitted that if the court were to find any wrongdoing in the sale, the only remedy available to the plaintiffs would be damages, which can be quantified, rather than recovery of the property.

The 1st defendant, Knight Frank Valuers Limited, also opposed the application, arguing that the stay sought is incompetent and procedurally defective.

Through their lawyer, they told the court that the ruling constituted a 'negative' order that cannot be stayed.

In its case, the second defendant, the East African Development Bank, argued that the former CS had failed to demonstrate substantial loss and should allow recovery of securities pledged against unpaid debts.

"Facts have not changed. The debts remain unpaid, and the plaintiffs have not shown they will suffer substantial loss. The pledged securities should be allowed to be recovered,” their lawyer argued.

However, lawyer Paul Nyamodi, appearing for the Tuju and Dari, maintained that the property is unique and its loss would cause irreparable harm if the appeal succeeds.

Nyamodi submitted in court that recovering damages from the East African Development Bank (EADB) may be difficult due to immunity issues, and urged the court to preserve the property pending appeal to avoid injustice.

He also challenged the valuation presented by the Knight Frank valuers, arguing that it was not properly done and should not form the basis for security deposit requirements.

"Each property is unique and if disposed and the action by plaintiff succeeds,  he may not be able to recover the property as it will have gone beyond jurisdiction of court," he stated.

Justice Moses Ado directed that a ruling on the stay application by Tuju will be delivered on May 7, 2026.

He further extended interim orders barring transfer of the disputed property.