Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has faced a significant setback as the Supreme Court once again dismissed his application to present new evidence in his attempt to halt the seizure of a Ksh3.5 billion property in Karen by a regional lender.
A panel of five judges from the Apex Court, led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, dismissed Tuju's second request to introduce additional evidence. They stated that the former Cabinet Secretary failed to justify the relevance of his proposed inclusion of a further witness statement from an East African Development Bank (EADB) official to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) last year, regarding their appeal.
"As a matter of course, the petitioners have not explained the relevance of this further witness statement in relation to their appeal. In our view, it is apparent that the petitioners, dissatisfied with our Ruling dated November 7, 2023, declining to strike out the respondent’s(EADB) replying affidavit sworn by Justa Kiragu, now seek, rather ingeniously, a second bite of the cherry through this application as the further witness statement that they seek to introduce is intended to counter the averments made in Justa Kiragu’s affidavit. We inevitably find that grant of leave to adduce additional evidence has not been satisfied," the five judges of the Supreme Court have ruled.
In January of this year, Tuju submitted an application to the Supreme Court, requesting permission to present additional evidence for the hearing and decision-making process of a second appeal. This evidence consisted of a further witness statement recorded by David Washington Barnabas Ochieng with the Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI) on December 21, 2023.
Last year, the Supreme Court granted Tuju permission to proceed with a second appeal at the apex court concerning the protracted dispute between his company, Dari Limited, and the regional bank over a loan acquired in April 2015.
The former Cabinet Secretary had pleaded with the Supreme Court to admit the evidence from the DCI officer, arguing its direct relevance to the case and its potential to influence the final decision. Tuju asserted that he couldn't have obtained this evidence earlier, as the officer only recorded the statement in December of last year.
"David’s further witness statement, he retracts his earlier assertions as captured in his prior witness statement and corroborates our position on the nature of the Facility Agreement as well as the history of engagements between the parties as given by East African Development Bank's official Kiragu," Tuju through Lawyer Paul Muite.
