The appellate judge secured 26 out of 41 votes cast in Monday’s election, defeating Lady Justice Lydia Achode, Justice Patrick Kiage and Lady Justice Agnes Murgor in a race closely watched within legal and judicial circles.

The election attracted all judges serving at the Court of Appeal, delivering a 100 per cent voter turnout.

The secret ballot was supervised by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

Justice Kairu’s victory marks the end of a succession process triggered by the retirement from office of former Court of Appeal President Justice Daniel Musinga, whose five-year term ended on May 24, 2026.

His election places him at the helm of a court that routinely handles some of the country’s most consequential disputes, including constitutional petitions, election appeals, commercial conflicts and criminal cases.

Moments after being declared the winner, Justice Kairu expressed gratitude to his colleagues for the confidence they had shown in him.

“I am deeply humbled by the trust and confidence reposed in me by my colleagues. I undertake to serve the Court and the people of Kenya with diligence, integrity and fidelity to the Constitution,” he said.

Among judges who participated in the election were Justice Imaana Laibuta, Lady Justice Grace Mumbi Ngugi and Justice Issack Hassan.

The position of President of the Court of Appeal is one of the most influential offices in the Judiciary. Besides presiding over appellate proceedings, the office holder is responsible for the administration and management of the Court of Appeal and plays a critical role in shaping judicial policy and case management.

Justice Kairu assumes office with an extensive legal career spanning private practice, academia, arbitration and judicial service.

He joined the Court of Appeal in 2012 after years in legal practice and alternative dispute resolution. Before his appointment to the bench, he was a partner at Kairu & McCourt Advocates and later worked as an arbitrator and mediator.

A holder of a Master of Laws degree from Boston University, Justice Kairu also earned his law degree from the University of Nairobi and a Diploma in Law from the Kenya School of Law.

His contribution to legal education is equally notable. For more than two decades, he lectured at the University of Nairobi School of Law, teaching Civil Procedure, Banking Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

He is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and has chaired several Judiciary committees, including the Integrated Court Management System Committee.

Justice Kairu takes over leadership of the Court of Appeal at a time when the Judiciary faces mounting pressure to clear case backlogs and efficiently handle a growing number of high-stakes appeals with significant political, economic and constitutional implications.

The post Judge Gatembu Elected Court of Appeal President After Landslide Victory appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a press statement dated January 13, 2026, LSK President Faith Odhiambo warned that the legal profession would not tolerate the abuse of judicial powers.

The controversy stems from Nakuru Petition E001 of 2026, where the High Court granted ex-parte conservatory orders that could effectively cut off private practitioners from public sector work.

LSK views this as the culmination of years of attempts to restrict lawyers’ access to government contracts.

The battle began in July 2020 when the Attorney General issued a directive requiring written approval before state departments could hire external legal counsel.

LSK challenged this through judicial review, and in July 2023, Justice Jairus Ngaah ruled in their favor.

The judge emphasized that procurement must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective, noting these values would be undermined if such a task was left to the whim of an individual.”

Despite this victory, a fresh challenge emerged in 2024 when petitioners sought to restrain county governments from hiring private law firms.

A Senate committee’s March 2025 report acknowledged that completely prohibiting outsourcing would violate constitutional provisions and procurement laws.

Both the Office of the Attorney General Act and Office of the County Attorney Act explicitly allow retention of external counsel when necessary.

Now, several petitioners led Busia Senator okiya Omtatah have returned to court in Nakuru, citing concerns about high legal fees and fiscal responsibility.

LSK dismissed these arguments as lacking novelty, calling them symbolic of a tired rhetoric against a profession that unreservedly dedicates itself to upholding constitutional values.

The Society emphasized that private lawyers fill critical gaps in the public sector by handling conflicts of interest cases, providing independent expertise, and managing workload excesses.

Legal fees, they noted, are strictly regulated and subject to court taxation when disputes arise.

LSK argued the ex-parte orders violate Article 50 of the Constitution, which protects the right to representation of choice.

The orders also contradict the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which bars courts from refusing to recognize lawyers’ rights to appear for clients.

Most troublingly, the retroactive nature of the orders threatens to suspend payment of lawful dues already assessed by courts.

The Odhiambo cited other recent examples of concerning judicial conduct, including Justice Bahati Mwamuye’s reversal of orders halting police recruitment and a three-judge bench suspending the Judicial Service Commission’s constitutional functions.

“We are apprehensive that the current pattern of abuse of Judicial powers threatens to spark outrage among both the public and our members,” Odhiambo stated.

She warned that unless the trend is stopped, LSK is “prepared to agitate for a radical surgery as a means to uphold our Constitution.”

LSK announced it is documenting instances of judicial misconduct and has filed an application to review and set aside the Nakuru orders.

While committed to serving the public, the Society pledged equal commitment to protecting its members’ livelihoods and the legal practice environment.

The post Law Society of Kenya Condemns Judicial Overreach in Battle Over Private Legal Practice appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a judgment delivered by Justices Daniel Musinga, Fatuma Tuiyott, and George Odunga on Friday, the appellate court upheld part of a High Court decision that found the Chandaria companies, referred to in the case as “obligors,” liable to pay the agreed purchase price for Guilders International Bank in 1999 but overturned the order that placed primary liability on Guardian Bank Limited, which is also associated with the family.

“We find that the Chandarias’ obligation to pay the purchase price fell squarely on the family’s obligors and not on Guardian Bank as purchaser,” the judges ruled, clarifying that the companies, and not the bank itself, were responsible for meeting the Sh196 million payment to Shivali Investments.

The Court ruled that the Chandaria-owned firms, and not Guardian Bank, were contractually obligated to pay the Sh196 million agreed in a 1999 share sale agreement with Shivali Investments and three other vendors, Naval Holdings, Ketty Investments, and Saaf Holdings and associated parties owned by Mr. Rajendra (Raju) Sanghani.

According to court documents, the dispute traces back to a complex deal that began with a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) dated October 13, 1999, and culminated in a formal sale agreement on December 30, 1999.

The sellers, Shivali Investments, Naval Holdings, Ketty Investments and Saaf Holdings, said they agreed to sell 200,000 ordinary shares in Guilders for Sh 196,000,000, a price tied to Guilders’ net asset value as at December 31, 1998.

The purchasers were Guardian Bank (the 1st appellant) and a group of obligors drawn from the Chandaria family and related companies (2nd–9th appellants).

The purchase price was pegged at Sh196 million, subject to adjustment based on the recoverability of certain loans in Guilders’ books by December 31, 2001, the “cut-off date.”

What followed was years of recovery work, counter-accusations and litigation over whether the purchasers had properly exhausted recovery avenues, whether the sellers misrepresented the recoverable loan portfolio, and who, as between Guardian Bank and the obligors, ultimately had to pay.

The appellants argued that many of the loans turned out to be non-performing and that they were therefore entitled to deduct huge sums from the purchase price.

Guardian and the obligors argued that the High Court judge erred in treating the MoU (which was expressly “subject to contract”) as part of the binding agreement.

The trial court accepted the sellers’ case and ordered return of securities and payment of the Sh 196 million consideration with interest at 12% as provided in the MoU.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the Chandarias’ firms failed to observe the contractual timelines and procedures for such deductions.

“It would be re-writing the contract between the parties to allow one of them extend obligations of the others and benefits for itself beyond the agreed time,” the judges ruled.

“The cut-off date was supposed to be extended in writing. It was not. Any purported sale or disposal of the securities offered by the plaintiff at any time after the cut-off date was outside the terms of the contract, irregular, null and void.”

The court added pointedly: “The horse had left the barn.”

Through their lawyers, the Chandaria companies argued that the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which preceded the sale agreement, was “subject to contract” and could not bind the parties unless a formal agreement was executed

They further claimed that the High Court wrongly relied on the MoU in ordering payment and return of securities.

Counsel for the appellants submitted that Guardian Bank and the obligors had lawfully set off unrecovered debts based on an independent audit conducted years later by Mr. Bhatt.

The audit, the court heard, showed that the recoverable loan portfolio had shrunk significantly, leaving the appellants with a negative balance of over Sh827 million.

However, the appellate judges dismissed the reliance on the 2014 audit report as “unsustainable and contrary to the contract’s express time limitations.”

“The evidence that emerges is that the 1st appellant had not demonstrated that it had exhausted all avenues in making full recovery of the warranted loans by the cut-off date,” the Court said.

“To admit post-2001 audits as the basis of set-offs would amount to rewriting the bargain struck by the parties.”

Lawyers for Shivali Investments, led by Mr. Sanghani, countered that the Chandaria firms never paid a single cent of the purchase price since 1999.

They argued that the appellants took over the bank, continued to profit from its operations, yet refused to remit the agreed consideration.

“The buyers cannot hide behind audits conducted over a decade later to justify non-payment,” Sanghani told the court.

“They were in control of the bank, they knew the loan book, and they chose not to honour their bargain.”

The Court agreed with this position, holding that the purchasers had full access to Guilders’ books and the opportunity to ascertain bad debts before the cut-off date.

“Had the parties taken the trouble of establishing the state of the loans as of 31st December 2001, this controversy would not have arisen,” the Court observed.

Another contentious issue involved four “blanket securities” that Guardian Bank sold to recover alleged losses.

The High Court had nullified those sales and ordered the return of the securities to the sellers.

On appeal, the Chandaria companies contended that the properties had been sold to third parties who were never heard in the proceedings, rendering the nullification a violation of the audi alteram partem principle, the right to be heard.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the trial judge erred in voiding the sales without involving the third-party buyers.

“The properties are now in the hands of third parties who were not parties to the proceedings and cannot be condemned unheard,” the judges ruled.

The appellate court therefore declined to order the restitution of those securities.

In conclusion, the appellate court declared the appeal partially successful and proceeded to set aside the High Court’s judgment of February 17 2023, substituting it with fresh orders.

The bench, led by Justice Musinga, ordered the Chandaria obligors (2nd–9th appellants), jointly and severally, must pay the Sh196,000,000 to the sellers, with interest at court rates from the date the suit was filed until payment.

The court further ordered that Guardian Bank (the 1st appellant) must “discharge and return the securities specified in the Sale Agreement to the respondents, save for LR numbers 209/9832, 3734/549, 209/8000/150 and 1870/II/6,” or pay their equivalent value if unable to do so.

“Ultimately, while the appeal succeeds in part, the obligation to pay the purchase price lies squarely on the Chandaria obligors. Guardian Bank’s role is confined to releasing the securities as stipulated, and nothing more,” the Judges ruled

The post Court of Appeal orders Chandaria family firms to pay Sh196 Million in Guilders bank Sale deal appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Justice Nixon Sifuna of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division ruled that the agency failed to prove the funds were proceeds of crime.

The judge added that the agency’s investigations were “rash, selective, and riddled with gaps,” and could not sustain a civil forfeiture claim.

He concurred with Sonko, stating that indeed he defended deposits as legitimate business and land sale proceeds.

ARA had argued that the deposits, spread across Sonko’s accounts at Equity Bank, Co-operative Bank and Diamond Trust Bank, were linked to corruption at City Hall and formed part of a “complex money laundering scheme.”

“The Motion states that there are reasonable grounds to believe that those funds are proceeds of crime. Reason for which the Motion has urged this Court to declare those funds proceeds of crime; and order that they be forfeited to the Kenya Government,” the judgment states.

In its case, ARA relied on an affidavit by Corporal Sautet Jeremiah, who claimed that between 2017 and 2019, Sonko’s accounts received “huge suspicious cash deposits and transfers” which were a “clear case of splitting, smurfing and placement of funds into the banking system.”

But the court criticised the agency for producing no statements from individuals allegedly involved in the flagged transactions and for only presenting bank records from August 2017, when Sonko became Governor.

“That selective approach is either dishonest or rash, oppressive and skewed to propound the Applicant’s narrative. It amounts to cherry-picking of data, as opposed to an objective consumption of the entire available data,” the judge ruled.

Sonko, in a replying affidavit dated November 7, 2023, dismissed the claims, saying he had legitimate business dealings long before entering politics.

The former governor through, Lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui cited earnings from matatus, nightclubs, restaurants, real estate and cyber cafes, as well as proceeds from land sales in Kwale and Kajiado worth hundreds of millions of shillings.

“I had for long had various income generating businesses, and it was normal and usual for my bank Accounts to receive huge cash deposits… I never at the time thought that I will later be called upon to explain these proceeds,” Sonko stated.

The judge found that ARA had not proved its case on a balance of probabilities as required under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).

“Investigation is not a pastime activity to be undertaken lazily, leisurely, lousily and rashly. It is a solemn duty for which the investigator is being paid,” the court stressed.

Consequently, the application was dismissed and the funds, totalling about Ksh26 million, remain under Sonko’s control.

The post High Court Dismisses ARA Bid to Seize Sh26 Million From Mike Sonko’s Bank Accounts appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In Civil Casefiled at the High Court in Milimani, Lenaola, through his lawyers Ngeri, Omiti & Bush Advocates LLP, is seeking urgent injunction orders to restrain Muigai from “publishing, circulating or causing to be published any further defamatory statements” against him.

In court papers seen by this reporter, the judge said Muigai had, in a series of widely circulated video interviews on September 8, September 12, and September 25, 2025, made scandalous allegations that were “false, reckless, malicious and calculated to injure” his personal and professional reputation.

“The Respondent maliciously alleged without any justification that I, together with other Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, was involved in corruption dealings in suits concerning his properties,” Lenaola stated in his sworn affidavit.

The judge further accused Muigai of going as far as linking him and his colleagues to the death of lawyer Kyalo Mbobu, who previously represented Muigai.

“On or about 12th September 2025, the Respondent made further allegations insinuating recklessly that I and other Justices were involved in the death of his Advocate, the late Mr. Kyalo Mbobu, allegedly as a result of his so-called ‘corruption exposé’,” Lenaola’s affidavit reads.

The disputed interviews were first aired on Digee (DG) Media’s YouTube and TikTok platforms, before being reposted on other digital outlets such as Mutembei TV, NewsLife TV, Superior Media KE, Balindiway Media, and Digital Nation.

As of the filing date, one of the TikTok videos had attracted 6,309 likes, 582 comments, 796 saves, and 1,724 reposts, according to the pleadings.

Lenaola argues that the wide circulation has fueled public misconceptions, lowering his standing among “right-thinking members of society” and undermining the integrity of the Judiciary, which “depends heavily on public trust.”

On September 16, 2025, Lenaola’s lawyers issued a formal demand notice to Muigai, instructing him to retract the claims.

However, Muigai allegedly refused, and instead “dared the Applicant to sue him.”

In one of his later videos on September 25, Muigai is said to have admitted granting similar interviews to mainstream media, including Nation Media Group, “with the malicious intent of further spreading his defamatory and unsubstantiated statements.”

Lenaola now seeks urgent court orders to compel Muigai to delete all defamatory videos, retract his remarks, and cease further publication pending full hearing of the case.

His lawyers argue:“It is in the public interest that the Respondent be restrained forthwith, as the Applicant, being a senior member of the Judiciary, requires protection from continued peddling of falsehoods. The actions of the Respondent are ill-intended and orchestrated to besmirch the reputation of the Applicant, unless this Honourable Court intervenes.”

The judge is seeking various orders inccluding,a temporary and permanent injunction barring Muigai from publishing any further defamatory statements.
” The court should issue an order compelling Muigai to retract and delete all defamatory posts and videos,” Lenaola seeks.

Justice Lenaola, who has also served in various regional and international judicial roles, emphasized his constitutional right to a good name under Articles 31 and 33(3) of the Constitution of Kenya (2010).

“Like every other Kenyan, I am entitled to my good name and the esteem in which I am held by others. By virtue of my distinguished position both locally and internationally, my reputation should not be disparaged by defamatory statements made without lawful justification,” he stated.

The post Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola Sues President Uhuru’s Cousin Kung’u Muigai for Defamation appeared first on Insider Bits News.