Bank goes after Tuju's rent in a move he says is an abuse of court

The Sh1.9 billion dispute pitting former Cabinet minister Raphael Tuju against  African Development Bank (EADB) has taken a new twist after the lender asked the court to order an attachment of his rent collected from a tenant.

Tuju claims the move is an abuse of court but the bank insists that it knows he rented his property to Tamarind Management Limited.

EADB in its new application wants the court to order that the money collected as rent be used to offset the debt at the centre of the dispute.

"It would be a travesty of justice to have the judgement debtors continue to avoid their legal obligations to settle the sums due and owing to the judgment creditor as a consequence of the English High Court Judgment, which has been recognized, registered, and enforced by this honourable court,” argued EADB.

But Tuju opposed the application saying the bank intends to beat court orders requiring status quo issued in 2023 and March 2024.

“The application is otherwise unmerited, misconceived, not aligned with our constitutional policy, a tenet of fair administration of justice, and should be struck out in the first instance to avoid any further delay of the matter,” he said.

At the heart of the case is whether a United Kingdom judgment in favour of EADB can be recognised and enforced in Kenya.

In a separate case, the former Cabinet minister is fighting to block receiver managers from his Dari Coffee Garden and Restaurant (which took the loan) while also shaking off a bankruptcy suit brought against him and his three children.

He is trying to convince the court that EADB reneged on an agreement they made to advance Dari a total of Sh1.19 billion.

The former minister claimed that the lender only advanced him around Sh800 million for the acquisition of the 20-acre Tree Lane property to expand his hospitality business at Dari in Karen.

Further, Tuju claimed that the regional bank reneged on advancing up to Sh294 million to develop 30 three-bedroomed senior resident units at Tree Lane and another 85-bedroomed maisonette at a nearby seven-acre land on Mwitu Road.

Tuju said that not only did the bank refuse to advance Dari the money, but it also frustrated all his efforts to amicably bring this issue to a close.

But EADB insisted that Tuju was offered a loan and should honour his debt obligation.

EADB is demanding Sh1.6 billion – including the principal amount and accrued interest - from Tuju and his three children Yma Tuju, Alma Tuju, and Mano Tuju, who are also directors at Dari. The four also personally guaranteed the loan.

The former Rarieda MP insists the UK judgment is defective and unconstitutional.

While poking holes in the judgment, he argued that the verdict cannot stand as Justice Daniel Toledano and EADB’s lawyer Michael Sullivan are both members of One Essex Court Chambers, a commercial law firm in the UK.

Tuju faulted the Commercial Court for allowing EADB to enforce the judgment in Kenya saying that Justice Wilfrida Okwany failed to consider his grievance on how the proceedings in the UK were conducted.

While denying the allegations, EADB lawyers Githu Muigai, Michael Sullivan, and former Uganda Solicitor General Peter Kabatsi argued that the politician had lost the battle in the UK, first before the High Court and his appeal.

According to the trio, Tuju ought to have sought recourse in the UK and not a Kenyan Court.

The court heard that he had not made any payments or showed commitment to offset the loan.

According to Githu, the UK court judgment meets the constitutional threshold for it to be enforced in Kenya as Tuju participated in the UK case, and was allowed to even fight on appeal.

The professor of law argued that the politician is trying to re-open the case afresh in Kenya, in a bid to deny his client an opportunity to recover its money.