Politician Charged in Court for Defrauding Couple Sh1 Million in Botched Deputy President’s Office Tender Deal

A prominent politician and former Mwingi West parliamentary aspirant has been ordered by a Nairobi court to refund more than Sh1 million to a couple who financed what was presented to them as a lucrative supply tender linked to the Office of the Deputy President.

The ruling, delivered by the Milimani Small Claims Court, found that Jonathan Ngenga Ndisya was liable for money advanced to him by businesswoman Jeniffer Nyambura and her husband Nicholas Nyaga for the procurement and delivery of goods allegedly intended for the Deputy President’s office.

The dispute arose from a series of financial transactions dating back to early 2024, when Ngenga reportedly approached the couple seeking funding to facilitate the supply of food items, furniture and equipment under what he described as an existing government tender opportunity.

Court records show that Nyambura initially advanced Sh728,000 to Ngenga on January 23, 2024. She also paid Sh72,000 directly to a wholesaler for rice supplies and an additional Sh30,000 for fuel expenses at his request.

The court heard that weeks later, Ngenga informed the couple that he had secured another supply opportunity involving furniture and equipment and required additional capital. On February 14, 2024, Nyambura and her husband advanced a further Sh290,000 through mobile money transfers, bringing the total amount contributed to approximately Sh1.12 million.

According to the couple, the money was advanced with the expectation that it would either be repaid or recovered through proceeds from the supply contract. However, after months passed without payment or evidence of successful delivery, they moved to court seeking recovery of the funds.

In his defence, Ngenga denied that the money constituted a loan. Instead, he argued that the parties had entered into a business venture in which the couple and a company identified as Que Beat Entertainment Limited agreed to provide financing while he handled procurement logistics, packaging, transportation and follow-up on payments from the Office of the Deputy President.

He maintained that any repayment obligation was dependent on the government office settling the tender payment and insisted that no payment had been received to date.

However, the court found significant gaps in his defence.

In a judgment delivered on June 5, 2026, Senior Resident Magistrate S. S. Oriwo noted that while the parties may have contemplated repayment upon receipt of payment from the alleged client, the burden remained on Ngenga to prove the existence of such an arrangement and demonstrate that the conditions he relied upon had been met.

The court observed that Ngenga failed to provide documentary evidence showing that goods were ever delivered to the Office of the Deputy President or that any valid supply contract existed.

“When questioned during cross-examination, the respondent conceded that he had no evidence showing that goods were delivered to the Office of the Deputy President,” the court noted.

The magistrate further held that the politician’s explanation amounted to little more than unsupported assertions and did not meet the legal threshold required to defeat the claim.

“The Court is satisfied that the claimants have proved on a balance of probabilities that the respondent is liable to refund the monies advanced,” the judgment stated.

The court consequently entered judgment in favour of Nyambura and Nyaga, awarding them Sh1 million together with interest at court rates from the date the suit was filed until payment is made in full.

The case highlights the growing number of disputes emerging from informal financing arrangements tied to government procurement opportunities, where investors and financiers are often persuaded to inject capital into projects based on promised access to lucrative public contracts.

Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the principle that individuals seeking funding for tender-related ventures must be prepared to provide clear documentation and evidence of both the underlying contracts and the use of investor funds.

For Nyambura and her husband, the judgment marks the end of a lengthy effort to recover money they say was advanced in good faith. For Ngenga, it raises fresh questions about the handling of the purported Deputy President’s Office supply deal and the circumstances under which the funds were obtained.