A controversial High Court decision involving US-based tycoon Julius Mwale has drawn renewed attention to the escalating public dispute between the Judiciary and former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) president Nelson Havi.
In a ruling delivered on February 27, 2025, Justice Freda Mugambi held Mwale personally liable for a Sh17 million debt arising from a commercial dispute, despite the suit having been filed against his company, Tumaz and Tumaz Limited.
The plaintiff, Sifatronix Limited, had sued Tumaz for alleged breach of contract relating to the supply of murram in 2017.
Sifatronix, a company reportedly owned by an employee of the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), claimed it supplied murram worth Sh17 million to Tumaz and was never paid.
However, during the proceedings, Sifatronix did not produce a written contract between itself and Tumaz.
Tumaz disputed the claim, arguing that Sifatronix was a subcontractor to Epic Agencies, a firm owned by the late Dr. Fitzgerald Oketch.
Dr. Oketch swore an affidavit and testified that Epic Agencies—not Sifatronix—had a direct contract with Tumaz, and that Sifatronix had no contractual relationship with Tumaz. His evidence supported an affidavit filed by Mwale.
Despite these submissions, the court ruled that both Tumaz and Mwale were liable to pay Sifatronix Sh17 million plus interest.
Tumaz subsequently lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Nairobi, where the matter is awaiting hearing.
As the appeal process commenced, Mwale’s legal team sought a stay of execution of the High Court orders.
Dr. Oketch died unexpectedly in October 2025, shortly before the stay application was argued. Senior Counsel Nelson Havi appeared for Mwale before Justice Alnashir Visram, who referred the application back to Justice Mugambi on December 16, 2025. No stay was granted on that date, and the court set the matter for hearing on February 18, 2026.
On December 18, 2025, Mwale’s lawyers filed a certificate of urgency seeking a stay and offered to provide a financial guarantee pending the appeal.
The following day, Justice Mugambi granted a conditional stay, giving the defendants 30 days from December 19 to deposit the guarantee.
The case took another turn when, two days later, the judge issued revised orders altering the compliance timeline.
The new directions required compliance by Christmas Day, rather than within 30 days. These revised orders were issued ex parte—without the presence of the defendants’ lawyers—and just hours before Christmas, a move that has since attracted criticism.
Mwale’s appeal challenges the High Court decision on points of law, including the principle that directors of limited liability companies are generally not personally liable for company debts.
Several legal commentators have suggested the appeal raises substantial legal questions and that the High Court ruling may be overturned, in whole or in part.
The dispute has unfolded against the backdrop of Senior Counsel Havi’s public campaign alleging corruption within the Judiciary.
Havi has repeatedly claimed that some judges accept bribes to influence decisions—allegations the Judiciary has denied. In October 2025, Havi said he had been sanctioned by Justice Mugambi for his outspoken criticism.
Havi has previously represented Tumaz in other high-profile litigation, including a 2022 dispute with the County Government of Kakamega over the Mumias Sugar lease.
In that case, Tumaz emerged as the top bidder with a Sh27 billion offer. The county government, then led by Governor Wycliffe Oparanya, sought to block the award through the courts.
In October 2025, the High Court in Kakamega dismissed the county’s case and awarded costs to Tumaz, which were later assessed at Sh700 million.
As the Nairobi matter proceeds to the Court of Appeal, questions continue to be raised about the basis of the High Court’s decision—particularly the award in favor of a claimant who produced no contract, the piercing of the corporate veil to impose personal liability on a director, and the issuance of conflicting and last-minute ex parte orders.
Whether these developments are connected in any way to the broader public confrontation between Mwale’s legal team and the Judiciary remains a matter of debate.
A representative for Mwale declined to comment, citing the ongoing court proceedings.
