Ridiculous and Malicious: Judiciary Dismisses Kung’u Muigai’s Corruption Allegations on Judges in Case Against KCB

The Kenyan Judiciary has strongly dismissed fresh corruption allegations leveled against Chief Justice Martha Koome and ten other senior judges by retired military officer Captain Kung’u Muigai, describing the claims as “ridiculous” and driven by “bad faith, malice and a camouflaged agenda.”

In a statement released Wednesday, September 10, 2025, through spokesperson Paul Ndemo, the Judiciary categorically refuted Muigai’s accusations that judges were bribed over KSh 825 million to favor Kenya Commercial Bank in the disputed sale of the 443-acre Muiri Coffee Estate.

Ndemo has emphasized that no competent forum has ever found evidence of wrongdoing or corruption, and that Muigai has failed to produce credible proof to substantiate his explosive claims.

The corruption allegations, filed with the Judicial Service Commission on August 19, 2025, targeted some of Kenya’s most senior judicial officers including Supreme Court justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko, alongside six Court of Appeal judges including President Daniel Musinga.

Muigai’s petition centers on a decades-long legal battle over the Muiri Coffee Estate, which he claims was improperly auctioned for KSh 70 million despite being worth significantly more.

He alleges that courts have consistently relied on a non-existent consent judgment dated May 4, 1992, to dismiss his suits as res judicata, effectively blocking his legal pursuit of the matter.

However, the Judiciary’s response paints a starkly different picture of the case’s history.

According to the statement, the dispute arose from a 1989 commercial loan extended by KCB to Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd, with the 443-acre coffee estate serving as security.

When the borrowers defaulted and failed to meet a July 31, 1992 repayment deadline, KCB moved to sell the charged properties.

The Judiciary maintains that a valid consent order was indeed recorded on May 4, 1992, before Justice Erastus Githinji, admitting the borrowers’ indebtedness.

The Court of Appeal confirmed this consent order’s validity on March 10, 1998, in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1997, finding no evidence of fraud or illegality.

Despite this final determination, Muigai continued filing successive suits across all court levels over two decades.

The Judiciary noted that by May 11, 2018, when the Court of Appeal dismissed Civil Application No. 40 of 2018, more than fourteen suits had been filed without success.

The court characterized this pattern as “vexatious and an abuse of the court process.”

Ndemo reveals that allegations of judicial misconduct in these cases were previously presented to the Judicial Service Commission, which independently reviewed the petitions and found no credible evidence of impropriety or misconduct by any judge.

Addressing Muigai’s specific bribery allegations, including claims of USD 3.5 million routed through offshore accounts and various payments to individual judges, Ndemo emphasized that dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes does not constitute proof of misconduct.

The statement pointedly noted that Muigai alleges all judges who ruled against his companies were bribed, while those who agreed with him were not corrupted.

The Judiciary has assured the public of its unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law and deciding matters impartially. It warned that unfounded allegations that impugn judicial integrity only serve to undermine public confidence in the courts and constitutional order, encouraging aggrieved parties to pursue lawful avenues of review grounded in evidence rather than engaging in misinformation campaigns.

This latest development adds another chapter to what the courts have characterized as a protracted and unsuccessful legal campaign spanning over three decades, with the Judiciary making clear that respect for final court judgments remains essential to the administration of justice.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​