By John Kariuki
A fresh storm has erupted over a decades-old legal battle pitting Benjoh Amalgamated against Kenya Commercial Bank, after Captain (Rtd) Kung’u Muigai accused the Judiciary of shielding a “phantom” consent judgment that has haunted the case for 33 years.
In a strongly worded statement, Capt. Muigai dismissed recent remarks by Judiciary spokesman Paul Ndemo, who claimed that his allegations amounted to mischief. He insisted that the matter at the heart of the case, the so-called consent judgment of May 4, 1992, either does not exist or was fraudulently misrepresented.
According to Capt. Muigai, a total of 29 judges have handled the matter since 1992, with six judges of the High Court and Court of Appeal having already ruled that the purported consent judgment does not exist. Among those still serving are Court of Appeal Judges Jamilla Mohammed, Agnes Murgor, and Justice P. Kiage.
He further noted that 11 other serving judges, including Chief Justice Martha Koome, Supreme Court judges Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko, as well as Justices Daniel Musinga and Patrick Mativo, ruled that the disputed consent judgment does exist yet failed to provide any record of it.
“My challenge to the Judiciary is simple: publish this consent judgment. A court record is a public document. Don’t write long essays, just produce this phantom judgment,” Capt. Muigai declared.
He argued that if the document cannot be produced, then the judges who ruled on its existence were either compromised through gross misconduct or demonstrated incompetence, both grounds for removal under Chapter 168 of the Constitution.
Calling for finality, Capt. Muigai demanded that the Judiciary either table the May 4, 1992 consent judgment in HCCC No. 1219 of 1992 or admit its nonexistence to bring closure to a case that has spanned more than three decades.
“This matter must be brought to a close. The people of Kenya deserve to see the truth,” he said.