By John Kariuki
In the corridors of justice, a fierce legal storm is gathering, pitting outspoken businessman Captain Kung’u Muigai against Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola in a high-stakes defamation suit that may redefine the boundaries of free expression, judicial integrity, and public accountability in Kenya.
At the centre of Civil Case No. E264 of 2025 lies an accusation by Justice Lenaola that Captain Muigai made statements on September 8 and 25, 2025, which he claims were defamatory and injurious to his reputation. The remarks, which touched on corruption and ethical conduct within the Judiciary, have now evolved into one of the most closely watched cases in recent judicial history.
Captain Muigai has not only admitted to making the statements in question but has chosen to mount a vigorous defence founded on two classical doctrines of defamation law — justification and fair comment. He contends that his remarks were truthful, made in good faith, and in the broader interest of the public, arguing that he spoke as a citizen aggrieved by a system he perceives to be deeply compromised.
In his pleadings, the Captain asserts that Justice Lenaola is, in his words, “libel and slander-proof,” suggesting that the Judge’s integrity, already clouded by past allegations, cannot suffer further injury through honest criticism. His defence is fortified by extensive particulars detailing a series of alleged improprieties said to have occurred in the Plaintiff’s judicial career.
Among these, Captain Muigai references his position as a director and shareholder of Benjoh Amalgamated Limited and Muiri Coffee Estate Limited, whose properties were charged to Kenya Commercial Bank Limited. He alleges that a judgment delivered by Justice Lenaola on July 23, 2004, in High Court Civil Case No. 1576 of 1999, which affirmed a consent judgment dated May 4, 1992, was not only false but corruptly procured. The Captain claims to have been informed by an employee of the bank that the decision was influenced by a bribe of one million shillings, allegedly solicited and received by the Judge, and has expressed willingness to disclose the informant’s identity to the court in camera should the need arise.
The Defence further refers to multiple petitions filed before the Judicial Service Commission seeking the Judge’s removal from office on grounds of gross misconduct and abuse of office. Of particular note are petitions dated January 13 and April 8, 2025, relating to the estate of the late John Keen, in which Justice Lenaola is accused of forging the deceased’s signature to appoint himself as executor and unlawfully interfering with the estate’s assets. It is alleged that instead of responding to these accusations, the Judge obtained an order in Nairobi High Court Petition No. E087 of 2025, restraining the Judicial Service Commission from investigating him.
Captain Muigai’s defence also recalls prior controversies surrounding the Judge’s conduct, including a 2017 petition by Derrick Mbaluka Ngumu following the Presidential election petition, which was widely reported by The Standard and Kenyans.co.ke. He also alludes to 2022 bribery allegations reported by The Star during another Presidential petition, though later dismissed by the Judiciary through a public clarification branding the reports as “fake news” in September 2023.
Beyond justification, the Captain invokes the defence of fair comment, asserting that his statements were expressions of opinion grounded in fact and made without malice on a matter of indisputable public importance. He argues that corruption within the Judiciary is not a speculative claim but a publicly acknowledged reality, and that his commentary was a legitimate exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of expression.
In support of this argument, Muigai cites a memorandum issued by the Law Society of Kenya to the Chief Justice on December 18, 2024, decrying the pervasive nature of corruption within the Judiciary. He recalls the joint statement by four former Presidents of the Law Society that same month demanding urgent reforms, and references the Chief Justice’s end-of-year address of December 31, 2024, in which she openly acknowledged the existence of entrenched corruption in the courts. According to Muigai, the year 2025 has already recorded the highest number of corruption complaints and disciplinary petitions filed before the Judicial Service Commission, further affirming his concern that public confidence in the Judiciary continues to erode.
He maintains that, as a Kenyan citizen and a direct victim of judicial misconduct, he was under a moral and civic obligation to raise the alarm and caution others. To him, his remarks were not defamatory utterances but an act of public conscience intended to expose a culture of impunity.
In his concluding prayers, Captain Muigai urges the High Court to dismiss Justice Lenaola’s claim with costs, describing it as an attempt to silence legitimate dissent and shield judicial officers from public scrutiny. Legal observers regard this case as a potential watershed in Kenya’s constitutional jurisprudence, testing how the courts will reconcile the competing values of freedom of expression, protection of reputation, and the sanctity of judicial independence.
As the proceedings unfold, Captain Kung’u Muigai remains steadfast, portraying himself not as a defamer but as a patriot determined to confront what he perceives as endemic corruption in the administration of justice. Whether the court will vindicate his stance or uphold the Judge’s claim remains to be seen, but one thing is certain — this case has thrust the delicate intersection between truth, honour, and judicial integrity into the national spotlight.
