Former President Uhuru Kenyatta's cousin, Captain (Rtd) Kung’u Muigai, could be set for a legal showdown with Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola after he accused the judge of taking a bribe.
In the letter dated Tuesday, September 16, Justice Lenaola described the claims as 'false, malicious and intended to damage the judge's reputation'.
The letter alluded to a video posted on TikTok where it is alleged that the judge accepted a Ksh1 million bribe in a supermarket parking lot while handling a long-running case between a firm and a bank.
Captain Kung'u, in the video, claims that the judge refused to intervene in the case and later ruled in favour of the bank after receiving the bribe.
He also faulted the Judiciary as a whole, describing it as an institution which was "corrupt to the core", and "judges take bribes openly".
According to Justice Lenaola's lawyers, the accusations are untrue and designed to embarrass and degrade their client, who has served in the judiciary for over 22 years.
"Your inaccurate, threatening, derogatory and malicious statements are a well-calculated and manicured scheme to injure, embarrass and hold our Client to scorn, disgrace or contempt in the minds of any reasonable members of society," the letter read.
Lenaola, through his legal team, has written to Captain Kung'u demanding that he pull down a viral TikTok video, issue an apology and desist from making defamatory remarks against the judge.
By the time the legal notice was formalised, the TikTok video had already attracted over 6200 likes and 1700 reposts, highlighting the public interest and engagement in the issue.
Meanwhile, Captain Kung’u, a retired military officer and prominent public figure, has stood by his statements and is preparing to fight the defamation claim. Notably, he has sought the services of city lawyer and former Law Society of Kenya president Nelson Havi to represent him in the case.
Captain Kung'u's sentiments also attracted a response from the Judiciary on September 10, with Spokesperson Paul Ndemo saying no credible evidence of misconduct has ever been produced and describing the allegations as unfair, especially since some of the judges mentioned have since retired or passed away.
The Judiciary countered that similar allegations had previously been presented to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which reviewed the complaints and found no evidence of impropriety. It stressed that dissatisfaction with rulings does not equate to proof of corruption.
