Justice Lenaola Distances Himself From Lawyer Kyalo’s Murder, Squeezes Uhuru’s Cousin in Defiant Law Suit

Supreme Court judge takes on businessman over bribery allegations stemming from 21-year-old land dispute

Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola has launched a fierce legal counteroffensive against businessman Kung’u Muigai, denying explosive allegations linking him to corruption and the murder of a Nairobi lawyer while simultaneously squeezing the controversial litigant with a defamation suit that could reshape how judicial officers defend their reputations.

The battle, now playing out before Justice Nixon Sifuna at the Milimani High Court, has exposed a complex web of allegations spanning two decades, involving disputed land auctions, forged wills, and claims of systemic judicial corruption that Muigai insists have cost him a 443-acre coffee estate in Juja, Kiambu County.

At the heart of the dispute lies a July 2004 ruling by then High Court Judge Lenaola, which upheld a consent judgment allegedly executed in 1992 by Muigai’s Muiri Coffee Estates Limited and Benjoh Amalgamated Limited.

The judgment paved the way for Kenya Commercial Bank to auction the prime agricultural land to recover outstanding debts.

But Muigai, through his lawyer Nelson Havi, claims the consent never existed and that Lenaola’s ruling was procured through a Sh1 million bribe.

The businessman alleges an unnamed KCB employee, whose identity he is willing to disclose in camera, informed him of the corrupt transaction.

“The judgment delivered on July 23, 2004, was procured through a bribe of Sh1 million,” Havi told the court, arguing that subsequent rulings by Justices Joyce Khaminwa and Jeanne Gacheche in 2009 and 2010 confirmed no such consent judgment was ever executed.

Justice Lenaola has vehemently denied the bribery allegations and moved to silence his accuser through the courts.

His lawyer, Herman Omiti, argues that Muigai’s statements, spread across YouTube, Facebook, X and WhatsApp, were orchestrated to besmirch the judge’s reputation.

“The applicant holds a very distinguished seat as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Kenya and he, therefore, has a right to claim that his reputation should not be disparaged by defamatory statements made about him without lawful justification or excuse,” Omiti submitted.

The case has taken a darker turn with Muigai’s attempts to link judges to the killing of his lawyer in Nairobi, allegations that Justice Lenaola describes as particularly malicious and damaging.

Court documents do not identify the murdered lawyer or provide details of the alleged connection.

Compounding the drama is a separate controversy involving the estate of former minister John Keen, who died in 2016. Justice Lenaola served as one of the executors of Keen’s will before resigning in November 2020.

Muigai has now alleged that Keen’s signature was forged in the execution of the will, though he has not provided supporting evidence.

Despite receiving a demand notice to retract his allegations, Muigai doubled down on September 25 with another video interview reiterating claims of judicial corruption.

The interview, aired across multiple social media platforms, prompted Justice Lenaola to seek urgent court intervention.

On October 1, Justice Sifuna granted an interim injunction barring Muigai and anyone acting on his behalf from circulating further defamatory remarks against the Supreme Court judge.

The order remains in force pending determination of the substantive case.

Havi has mounted a robust defence, arguing that his client’s statements constitute fair comment made in good faith on a matter of public interest, namely rampant corruption in the judiciary.

He accuses the Judicial Service Commission of shielding corrupt judges from accountability.

“The Judicial Service Commission which is mandated to consider and investigate complaints of gross misconduct and misbehaviour against judges has shielded the judges of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court responsible for the loss of property through corruption,” Havi submitted.

The conflicting judgments at the centre of the dispute paint a confusing picture.

While Justice Erastus Githinji ruled in October 1997 that no consent judgment existed, Justice Lenaola’s 2004 judgment found otherwise, determining that the consent was executed and recorded on May 4, 1992.

Muigai’s legal team argues that two companies, Muiri Coffee Estates and Benjoh Amalgamated, had offered land titles as security for credit facilities advanced to Benjoh for flower farming in Nyandarua.

However, they insist no consent judgment authorizing the land’s sale was ever executed.

The businessman, who served as director and shareholder of both companies, has questioned why it took him 21 years to publicly air his grievances if the alleged bribery occurred in 2004.

Court documents do not provide an explanation for the delay.

The case is scheduled for mention on October 13, with Justice Lenaola expected to file a substantive response addressing each of Muigai’s allegations in detail.

Legal observers say the outcome could have far-reaching implications for how judicial officers protect themselves against social media attacks and unsubstantiated corruption claims.

For Justice Lenaola, who has weathered previous controversies including petitions seeking his removal from the bench, the defamation suit represents a determined effort to clear his name and restore his reputation.

For Muigai, it is the latest chapter in a decades-long quest for what he believes is justice in a corrupt system.

The court will ultimately have to determine whether Muigai’s allegations, made without concrete evidence, cross the line from legitimate public interest commentary into actionable defamation, or whether they expose genuine corruption that the JSC has failed to address.