Tuskys owners sue DTB, Equity in a bid to stop properties auction
National
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Apr 22, 2026
Tuskys Supermarket was once the country’s biggest family retailer.
However, today, it remains only a memory for many Kenyans, as it closed its doors after struggling with a Sh4 billion loan from Diamond Trust Bank and Equity Bank.
Orakam Holdings Limited owned the retail chain founded by Joram Kamau.
The company has moved to court, in a bid to salvage two prime properties in Athi River, arguing that the amount paid so far and the securities held by the bank surpass the debt owed to the two banks.
Orakam’s director, John Kago Kamau, in the case told the court that the firm was Tusker Mattresses Limited’s guarantor in the loans taken from both DTB and Equity.
READ MORE
Nicholas Bodo named acting Civil Aviation Authority DG as Arao exits
Of demand and supply: Why affordable housing uptake has slowed down
New policy fails to deliver tax predictability, expand tax base
Why investing in real estate over paper wealth makes sense
New solutions seal energy access gaps for homes
State rallies support for Sacco reforms
Jubilee asset management records surge in profitability
EU unblocks 90-bn-euro Ukraine loan after Hungary row
Kisumu port targets 700,000 tonnes as expansion fuels Lake Victoria trade boom
Revealed: Delayed wages push salaried Kenyans to survive on advance loans
Kago said that the retailer is currently folding, marking the end of an era for the giant that once dominated the supermarket business.
Nevertheless, according to him, DTB decided to consolidate all the loans to the tune of Sh2.8 billion.
However, he said that a reconciliation of the records indicated that the lender allegedly had more than an excess of Sh5 billion, as the loan, as the collateral held, cash recoveries and assets that had been sold totalled Sh9.2 billion.
According to him, DTB ought not to pursue Orakam anymore.
“When due regard is had to the realized liened funds, fixed deposit securities, rental income assignments, daily receivables channeled through the first defendant or respondent (DTB), and the crystallized value of charged immovable and movable assets, the first defendant or respondent has in fact recovered, or holds recoveries capable of immediate application, in excess of the lawful indebtedness, thereby extinguishing any residual obligation,” said Kago.
He that on January 13 last year, DTB advertised an auction of the Tuskys Athi River and Great Valley Villas in Karen.
The businessman further said that he again advertised the property in January and April this year.
However, according to him, the April advertisement included a property in Kitisuru, a residential property in Riverpark Estate, Athi River and apartments across Nairobi.
Kago claimed that the bank intended to recover Sh260 million from the sale. However, he asserted that by its letter dated May 19, 2020, it acknowledged that only Sh27.4 million was outstanding.
“The cumulative conduct of the defendants or respondents, including the imposition of multiple overlapping securities, duplicative guarantees, layered charges over identical assets, and the failure to discharge prior encumbrances, amounts to gross over-securitisation, unjust enrichment, and economic oppression, thereby exposing the plaintiff to disproportionate liability far beyond what is lawfully recoverable,” he argued.
Kago wants the court to force DTB and Equity to give a full account of the debt owed and how much has been defrayed.
At the same time, he is asking the court to block the banks from either advertising for sale or transferring the properties they hold as collateral to the loan until a reconciliation is done.
By the time Tuskys was collapsing, documents filed in court indicate that it had sunk into a billion-shilling deficit hole.
The idea to settle the debts included transferring Orakam assets, which were owned by Tusker Mattresses subsidiaries. This, according to the court record, would have fetched at least Sh2.5 billion.
However, in court, Kago said that if the bank was allowed to auction, then Orakam would suffer, as one cannot put a finger on the contested debt.
“The threatened sales will occasion the plaintiff grave, irreparable and disproportionate prejudice, particularly in light of its position as guarantor exposed to enforcement under a disputed and unascertained debt and where the securities sought to be realised are demonstrably excessive relative to the alleged indebtedness,” he said.