The High Court has been told that the disputed Dari property linked to former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju was sold and transferred before any injunction was issued, as parties clashed over a stay application in an ongoing property dispute.
During a substantive hearing before Justice Moses Ado on Tuesday, the 10th defendant, Ultra Eureka Limited, argued that it lawfully purchased the contested property through a public auction in October 2024 and has since taken possession.
The company submitted that the Karen property, associated with Dari Limited, was sold on October 1, 2024, pursuant to the statutory power of sale exercised by the second defendant, Knight Frank Valuers Limited.
According to Ultra Eureka, interim orders stopping the auction were only issued several weeks later, on October 28, 2024. It argued that by then, the sale had already been concluded and transfer documents processed, placing the property beyond the reach of any subsequent injunction.
“The property was sold in a public auction and transferred. When interim orders were vacated, we took possession. There is nothing to stay because the property is no longer in the hands of the plaintiffsTuju, his family and Dari Limited,” the court heard.
The submissions were in response to a fresh application by Tuju seeking to suspend the execution of a March 9 ruling delivered by Justice Josephine Mongare, pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal.
Justice Mongare had struck out the amended plaint filed by Tuju and Dari Limited and lifted interim orders that had restrained the defendants from dealing with the disputed property.
Ultra Eureka further argued that, even if the court were to find fault in the sale, the appropriate remedy would be damages rather than recovery of the property, which it said has already changed hands.
The first defendant, Knight Frank Valuers Limited, also opposed the application, describing the sought stay as incompetent and procedurally defective. Its counsel told the court that the ruling in question constituted a “negative order” that cannot be stayed.
Meanwhile, the second defendant, the East African Development Bank (EADB), argued that Tuju had failed to demonstrate substantial loss and should allow recovery of securities pledged against unpaid debts.
“Facts have not changed. The debts remain unpaid, and the plaintiffs have not shown they will suffer substantial loss. The pledged securities should be allowed to be recovered,” EADB’s lawyer submitted.
However, lawyer Paul Nyamodi, representing Tuju and Dari Limited, maintained that the property is unique and its loss would cause irreparable harm if the appeal succeeds.
Nyamodi argued that recovering damages from EADB could be difficult due to immunity issues and urged the court to preserve the property pending appeal to avoid injustice.
He also challenged the valuation conducted by Knight Frank, saying it was improperly done and should not form the basis for any security deposit requirements.
“Each property is unique and, if disposed of, and the plaintiff succeeds, he may not be able to recover it, especially if it goes beyond the jurisdiction of the court,” he said.
Justice Ado directed that a ruling on the stay application will be delivered on May 7, 2026, and extended interim orders barring any further transfer of the disputed property.
