Uhuru Kenyatta's cousin Kungu Muigai sued over bribery claims in Sh3 billion land dispute

Former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s cousin, Kungu Muigai, is facing a lawsuit from five Court of Appeal judges over bribery allegations he made in connection with the Sh3 billion Muiri Coffee Estate auction dispute involving Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB).

Months after the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) dismissed his complaints against Justices Asike Makhandia, Francis Tuiyott, Sankale Ole Kantai, Kathurima M’inoti and John Mativo, the five judges sued Muigai, accusing him of deliberately damaging their careers and reputations.

Chief Registrar of the Judiciary Winfrida Mokaya said in the JSC decision that none of Muigai’s petitions contained allegations of bribery or corruption, nor did he provide evidence to support such claims. “The Commission underscores the fact that none of the petitions lodged by Captain Muigai contained any allegation of bribery or corruption, nor was any evidence submitted to substantiate any such allegation,” Mokaya said, describing his subsequent social media accusations as baseless and misleading.

In their case filed at the High Court, the judges said Muigai had claimed to possess audio recordings supporting his allegations but had never submitted them to the JSC or any investigative agency.

Their lawyer, Peter Wanyama, argued that Muigai had sought to besmirch the judges despite having no evidence to support his claims.

The JSC also found that Muigai had previously acknowledged the existence of a consent order which he later claimed on social media did not exist.

The dispute centres on Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2018, Benjoh Amalgamated Enterprise v KCB & Bidi Ltd. In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2024, a five-judge Court of Appeal bench found it implausible that Benjoh did not know its advocate, Gideon Kiambuthu Meenye, whom it had allegedly worked with for decades.

The judges upheld the bank’s position that the case was defective and said attempts by Muigai and his brother to reopen the consent issue were unfounded.

The dispute dates back to a consent order determined in December 2017.

The Court of Appeal later noted that the Supreme Court had also upheld the consent, finding that Benjoh was bound by the actions of its then advocate.

The judges questioned why Muigai had waited decades to challenge Meenye’s involvement in the case.

“One wonders why during the numerous cases the applicant filed in the High Court and in this Court... the applicant never, even in the slightest manner alluded to the issues now being canvassed before us,” the judges said.

They added that Muigai appeared to take contradictory positions by suggesting both that there was no consent and that the consent had been entered into without Benjoh’s authority.

In his earlier case, Muigai argued that he only discovered on 4 May 1992 that Meenye had not signed a consent authorising the sale of land on behalf of Benjoh.

His lawyer, the late Kyalo Mbobu, argued that the Court of Appeal had overturned a High Court ruling requiring KCB to disclose information relating to the account.

Muigai also complained that his land had been auctioned for Sh70 million to recover a loan, despite its alleged value of Sh3 billion.

The judges’ lawsuit now places Muigai’s public allegations under renewed scrutiny as the legal battle over the long-running property dispute continues.