Justice Joseph Biomdo dismissed separate petitions filed by auctioneer Kennedy Ngumbau and advocate Joseph Kimani Wachira, who said investigators manufactured evidence during arrests at Mr Tuju’s Entim Sidai property in Karen on March 9, 2026.
The cases arose from Mr Tuju’s commercial dispute with the East African Development Bank (EADB) over loans advanced to his company, Dari Limited, for a property project in Karen.
Dari and SAM Company borrowed $9.3 million in 2015, secured it against Entim Sidai, Tamarind Karen and Dari Business Park. The lender later pursued recovery after default, triggering years of court battles and attempts to sell the properties.
The alleged bribery scheme concerned proceedings in which Mr Tuju and Dari Ltd were contesting the bank’s recovery efforts.
Raphael Tuju's Dari Restaurant grounds. Mr Tuju lost control of his company, Dari Limited, over a loan owed to the East African Development Bank (EADB).
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) said the money sought from him was intended to secure favourable decisions from a High Court judge in Milimani Nairobi.
In Mr Wachira’s case, Mr Tuju told EACC that the lawyer together with Thomas Awili and a former judge, the late Joseph Mutava, sought Sh10 million. The money was allegedly meant for a sitting judge to influence a ruling in a commercial case.
Mr Wachira denied the allegations. He said Mr Awili approached him in February 2026 about a possible legal brief concerning Mr Tuju’s properties. He attended three meetings at Tuju’s Entim Sidai, including one on March 9 with Mr Tuju, Mr Awili and Justice Mutava.
Lawyer Wachira said that during the meeting, Mr Tuju placed Sh1 million, in cash, on the table without prior discussion. He maintained that he did not take the money and left the villa to retrieve a notebook from his vehicle when officers arrested him. He was detained overnight and released on Sh200,000 cash bail.
The EACC said Mr Tuju had reported that the three men requested Sh10 million to influence the judge. Investigators briefed Mr Tuju on using an audio-visual recording device, supplied the treated cash and accompanied him to the meeting. Officers arrested the three after Mr Tuju signalled; they recovered the cash.
“The second respondent’s role was strictly limited to facilitating the collection of evidence. It neither set up the meeting nor influenced the discussions therein,” he ruled.
“There is no doubt that the said evidence possesses great probative value,” said the judge. Investigations were continuing and no charges had been levelled against the petitioners.
For his part, Mr Mulwa said Mr Tuju invited him to discuss a business proposal and handed him Sh200,000 as appreciation. EACC alleged that Mr Mulwa had received Sh250,000 in October 2025 and later sought another Sh5 million to influence rulings in three cases.
Mr Mulwa said the earlier payments were consultancy fees. He denied seeking money for a judge, accused Mr Tuju of luring him to the meeting, and alleged investigators leaked arrest videos and accessed his phone unlawfully.
The EACC said warrant-backed phone analysis revealed communications between Mr Mulwa, Mr Tuju and the judge, as well as records of the earlier payments. Mr Mulwa disputed its interpretation.
In its judgment, the court rejected Mr Mulwa’s claim that Mr Tuju had acted as an EACC agent. The court said the earlier payments and alleged demand predated EACC’s operation.
“The fifth respondent (Tuju) was an ordinary complainant rather than a derivative agent,” ruled Justice Biomdo.
Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju speaks on a phone call as heavily armed security officers seal off the Dari Business Park property in Karen along Ngong Road in Nairobi during an early-morning operation on March 14, 2026.
Photo credit: Wilfred Nyangaresi | Nation Media Group
The court said disputes over the payments and recordings belonged before a trial court if criminal charges were filed, and found no proof of malice, illegality or entrapment. The court found that investigators acted within their mandate.
“Such factual disputes are properly reserved for the trial court and cannot be determined at this investigative stage,” Justice Biomdo ruled, adding that there was no established proof of malice, illegality or abuse of investigative powers.
The Director of Public Prosecutions said the challenge was premature because no charge had been filed and no decision to prosecute was shown.
The court said neither Mr Wachira nor Mr Mulwa had been charged and declined to decide whether the EACC evidence would be admissible or affect a fair trial.
