From construction deal to courtroom war: Moi University's 27-year battle with contractor

In the early 1990s, as Kenya expanded its higher education infrastructure, a promising partnership was forged between Vishva Builders Limited and Moi University.

The goal was ambitious: the construction of a Faculty of Science complex that would serve generations of students. What began as a routine construction contract, however, has evolved into one of the country’s most protracted legal and financial disputes—stretching over three decades and still unresolved.

On May 24, 1990, Vishva Builders secured a contract worth Sh476.37 million for Phase One of the Faculty of Science building. According to the company, the agreement was formally accepted, with construction scheduled to begin on June 21, 1990, and to run for 130 weeks.

The contractor mobilised resources and began work. By its account, it completed a portion of the project and issued a certificate valuing the work done at Sh242 million. But payments did not follow as expected. The university, Vishva claims, paid only Sh57 million—leaving a massive outstanding balance of Sh185 million.

As delays mounted and seven valuation certificates allegedly went unpaid, the project ground to a halt. For Vishva Builders, the financial strain was immediate and severe. For the university, the explanation was simpler: it had run out of funds.

By April 1991, construction had stopped. The university later acknowledged that only about nine per cent of the work had been completed when the project was abandoned due to financial constraints.

Vishva Builders, led by its Managing Director Ramji Vekaria, turned to the courts. The company, in a suit filed in 1999, argued that a valid contract existed and that it had fulfilled its obligations up to the point of stoppage. The university, in its defence, raised a technical argument: the agreement was not legally binding because the Bill of Quantities (BQ) had not been formally executed.

Despite this, the High Court in Eldoret ruled in favour of Vishva Builders. The presiding judge found that the parties had indeed entered into a valid agreement and ordered the university to pay the outstanding Sh185 million.

For many disputes, such a ruling would mark the end. In this case, it was only the beginning.

Although the principal amount was eventually settled, the issue of accrued interest remained unresolved. Over the years, that interest ballooned to more than Sh1 billion—transforming the dispute from a contractual disagreement into a financial crisis for the university.

Vishva Builders has continued to pursue the debt, arguing that justice delayed should not mean justice denied. The company’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Nelson Havi, has taken increasingly aggressive steps to recover the funds.

In 2026, the dispute reached a critical stage when Vishva Builders sought to recover the accrued interest through garnishee proceedings.

The company targeted multiple accounts held by Moi University across several banks, including National Bank of Kenya, Co-operative Bank of Kenya, Kenya Commercial Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Access Bank, Equity Bank, and Absa Bank Kenya. The application sought to attach funds from dozens of accounts to satisfy the growing debt.

Initially, the court paused proceedings to allow both parties to explore an out-of-court settlement. But when no agreement materialised, the court proceeded to rule on the application.

Moi University opposed the move, warning of dire consequences. Through its legal officer, Dorcas Mengich, the institution argued that attaching its accounts would cripple operations.

The university emphasised that, as a public institution, its funding is tied to government budget cycles. Its accounts, it said, are carefully categorised—ranging from operational and capital accounts to research and scholarship funds—each with strict usage limitations.

Freezing these accounts, the university argued, would disrupt essential services such as staff salaries, student programs, research projects, and daily operations. It pointed to its already fragile financial state, marked by layoffs and labour unrest, as evidence of its vulnerability.

The banks named in the proceedings provided detailed accounts of the university’s holdings and the complexities involved. Some confirmed the existence of multiple accounts but noted that several were designated for specific purposes such as research or donor-funded projects, making them legally restricted. Others revealed discrepancies, including accounts that did not belong to the university, had been closed, or held minimal funds.

Notably, Kenya Commercial Bank disclosed that the university owed it over Sh859 million in unremitted staff loan repayments, raising questions about competing financial obligations and priorities.

Despite these complexities, most banks indicated they would comply with any court orders.

In its ruling, the High Court acknowledged a key point that there was no dispute over Vishva Builders’ entitlement to the accrued interest. Nor was there any challenge to the amount claimed or the company’s right to pursue garnishee proceedings.

The court ultimately upheld its earlier position that “special” accounts would be protected from attachment.

Accounts designated for research, scholarships, or governed by external agreements were excluded. Similarly, accounts found to be non-existent or already closed were removed from consideration.

At the same time, the court allowed the attachment of other accounts not subject to such restrictions.

The final orders authorised Vishva Builders to recover the certified interest from available funds in the attachable accounts. Once payments are made, the garnishee orders would be discharged