Former President Uhuru Kenyatta's cousin Kung'u Muigai has been dealt a blow after the high court slapped him with a gag order against publishing defamatory statements against Supreme Court judge Isaac Lenaola.
Justice Nixon Sifuna, in a ruling, granted an interim injunction barring Muigai from circulating statements deemed defamatory through any media or online platform.
The judge further directed that the application be served to Muigai within two days, with a response expected within five days.
Justice Lenaola had earlier filed an urgent application, accusing Muigai of making malicious allegations during interviews conducted on September 8 and September 12 2025. His remarks have since gone viral on social media.
According to court documents, Muigai allegedly linked Lenaola to corruption and a series of bribes. More sensationally, the Justice's name was also roped into the death of lawyer Kyalo Mbobu.
Lenaola claimed that despite serving Muigai with a formal demand to retract his claims, the businessman snubbed him and proceeded to make more defamatory claims in follow-up interviews. Muigai is also alleged to have dared Lenaola to sue him.
Captain Kung’u, a retired military officer and prominent public figure, stood by his statements and prepped for a legal battle by seeking the services of city lawyer and former Law Society of Kenya President Nelson Havi to represent him in the case.
Following the latest ruling, Justice Lenaola was given the provision to submit a supplementary affidavit within three days after receiving Muigai's response.
The court is set to issue further directions on October 13, with the case set to proceed by way of written submissions.
In the wake of Muigai's explosive comments, which particularly went viral on TikTok, the Judiciary, through Spokesperson Paul Ndemo, clarified that no credible evidence of misconduct has ever been produced and described 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.
