The Judiciary has responded to recent allegations by Captain (Rtd.) Kung’u Muigai concerning the long-running dispute of Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd & Muiri Coffee Estate Ltd v Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB).

Muigai claimed that bribes totaling more than Ksh825 million were given to senior judges to bend the rulings in favour of KCB in the sale of the 443-acre Muiri Coffee Estate.

However, the Judiciary has refuted any suggestion of misconduct by judges who presided over the matters.

“No competent forum has ever found evidence of wrongdoing or corruption, and Mr. Muigai has not produced credible proof to substantiate his claims,” Judiciary said.

Here is the full statement from the Judiciary released on September 10, 2025

1.The Judiciary has noted recent allegations by Captain (Rtd.) Kung’u Muigai concerning the long-running dispute of Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd & Muiri Coffee Estate Ltd v Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB). We categorically refute any suggestion of misconduct by judges who presided over these matters. No competent forum has ever found evidence of wrongdoing or corruption, and Mr. Muigai has not produced credible proof to substantiate his claims. Purporting to bring evidence after a number of the judges have long retired and others deceased, is not only ridiculous but reeks of bad faith, malice and a camouflaged agenda.

2.Purporting to bring evidence after a number of the judges have long retired and others deceased, is not only ridiculous but reeks of bad faith, malice and a camouflaged agenda. This case arose from a commercial loan. In 1989, KCB extended a facility to Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd. The loan was secured by charges over properties owned by the borrower and guaranteed by a charge over a 443-acre coffee estate owned by Muiri Coffee Estate Ltd. Following default, KCB moved to realise its securities. In HCCC No. 1219 of 1992, the parties recorded a consent order on 4 May 1992 before Justice Erastus Githinji (as he then was). By that consent, Benjoh admitted indebtedness and undertook to repay the outstanding sums by 31 July 1992, failing which KCB was entitled to sell the charged properties. The borrowers did not meet this deadline.

3.As KCB scheduled auctions, the borrowers filed successive suits to stop the sales. These suits were dismissed by various High Court benches on the basis that the issues had already been settled by the 1992 consent. On 10 March 1998, the Court of Appeal, then the apex court, in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1997, confirmed that the consent order was valid and binding, and found no evidence of fraud or illegality. This determination was final and ought to have ended the litigation.

4.Despite that final decision, the borrowers continued filing suits and applications before the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and later the Supreme Court. All were dismissed as res judicata (a legal principle preventing a matter that has already been determined being re-opened), the substance of the dispute having been conclusively determined in 1998. The courts consistently emphasised the fundamental principle that litigation must come to an end.

5. In Civil Application No. 40 of 2018, the Court of Appeal again dismissed a further court challenge by the borrowers on 11 May 2018. By then, the court noted that more than fourteen (14) suits had been filed over two decades without success, and characterised the continued litigation as vexatious and an abuse of the court process. Across all levels of the courts, the record shows consistent and reasoned application of settled principles: res judicata, the enforceability of consent judgments, and a chargee’s statutory power of sale.

6. Allegations of judicial misconduct relating to these cases were also presented to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The JSC independently reviewed the petitions and found no credible evidence of impropriety or misconduct by any judge.

7. It must be emphasized that dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes is not proof of misconduct. It is mischievous, to say the least, of Captain (Rtd) Muigai to allege that all the judges that handled his matters and made orders against his companies were bribed, and those that agreed with him were not corrupted. He mentions by name a total of 17 Court of Appeal Judges who have pronounced themselves on the matter and one (then) High Court Judge. He alleges that ALL the judges in all the matters were bribed to rule the way they did.

8. The Judiciary treats all allegations of corruption with utmost seriousness. Established mechanisms, including the JSC, exist to receive, investigate, and determine complaints against judicial officers. In this instance, no evidence has ever been presented to substantiate claims of judicial corruption.

9. The Judiciary reassures the public of its unwavering commitment to uphold the rule of law, to decide matters impartially, and to bring disputes to a just and final conclusion. Respect for final court judgments is essential to the administration of justice. Unfounded allegations that impugn judicial integrity only serve to undermine public confidence in our courts and constitutional order. Parties aggrieved by judicial outcomes are encouraged to pursue lawful avenues of review and complaint, grounded in evidence, rather than engage in misinformation and disinformation campaigns.

Captain Kung’u Muigai. PHOTO/Nation.