Raphael Tuju’s Assets To Be Seized Over 1.5 Billion Owed to EADB

By Carlos Onyango / February 14, 2020 | 9:32 am



Raphael Tuju

Jubilee Party Secretary General Raphael Tuju has been caught on the hook as a foreign bank wants to seize his assets over 1.5 billion shillings loan.

A High court ruling gave East African Developmental Bank (EADB) the go-ahead to seize Tuju’s assets due to 1.5 billion shillings loan that was given to his Company, Dari limited.

Tuju had made an agreement with the EADB that the case would be heard in a United Kingdom court, but he later decided to appeal to the High Court after the United Kingdom court ruled in favor of the lender.

The Jubilee party SG claimed that the English court was biased and did not give him a fair chance to defend himself against the EADB.

In the agreement, Tuju’s company, Dari Limited was advanced a loan of 900 million shillings to Purchase a property known as Tree Lane in Nairobi back in 2015.EADB then took titles of 27 acres of Tuju’s land as security.

The former Rarieda Member of Parliament said he would have Phase Two project which he would use to get additional funds and pay the loan owed to EADB but the bank did not give him the second loan.

The UK court later learned that there was no Phase Two project in terms of an agreement between Tuju and EADB as the lender remained mum, thus Tuju lost the case.

“I have been referred to the minutes of the board meetings which resolutions were passed approving the loan arrangements. There is no reference in those documents to the alleged representation concerning Phase Two,” ruled the English court.

Tuju’s lawyer argued that the Phase Two Project was crucial in repaying the loan but the bank remained silent thus affecting the deal.

“The proceeds of the sale of the facility, services, and the spa would be a source of revenue to repay the amount borrowed. The respondents did not dispense the funds as had been agreed upon. They only gave money for the first phase,” the lawyer argued.

Tuju’s hopes were further deemed when the High Court judge ruled against him saying that the UK Court had its own order, which is somehow different from that of the Kenyan courts.

According to Justice Wilfrida Okwany, Tuju had been given the opportunity by the UK court but he lost, and going to the high court was like seeking validation of the ruling by the English court.

“The jurisdiction of the court is limited to the enforcement of the foreign judgment. Any further challenge to the finding of the UK court can only be determined by the English court. The order of the UK court cannot be impeached by this court,” Justice Okwany ruled.

Tuju has however been given a chance to appeal the decision made by the High Court.







More Articles From This Author







Trending Stories










Other Related Articles










SOKO DIRECTORY & FINANCIAL GUIDE



ARCHIVES

2020
  • January 2020 (272)
  • February 2020 (310)
  • March 2020 (390)
  • April 2020 (321)
  • May 2020 (336)
  • June 2020 (329)
  • July 2020 (335)
  • August 2020 (70)
  • 2019
  • January 2019 (253)
  • February 2019 (216)
  • March 2019 (285)
  • April 2019 (254)
  • May 2019 (272)
  • June 2019 (251)
  • July 2019 (338)
  • August 2019 (293)
  • September 2019 (306)
  • October 2019 (313)
  • November 2019 (362)
  • December 2019 (320)
  • 2018
  • January 2018 (291)
  • February 2018 (219)
  • March 2018 (278)
  • April 2018 (225)
  • May 2018 (238)
  • June 2018 (178)
  • July 2018 (256)
  • August 2018 (249)
  • September 2018 (256)
  • October 2018 (287)
  • November 2018 (284)
  • December 2018 (185)
  • 2017
  • January 2017 (183)
  • February 2017 (194)
  • March 2017 (207)
  • April 2017 (104)
  • May 2017 (169)
  • June 2017 (205)
  • July 2017 (190)
  • August 2017 (195)
  • September 2017 (186)
  • October 2017 (235)
  • November 2017 (253)
  • December 2017 (266)
  • 2016
  • January 2016 (165)
  • February 2016 (165)
  • March 2016 (190)
  • April 2016 (143)
  • May 2016 (245)
  • June 2016 (182)
  • July 2016 (271)
  • August 2016 (248)
  • September 2016 (234)
  • October 2016 (191)
  • November 2016 (243)
  • December 2016 (153)
  • 2015
  • January 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (4)
  • March 2015 (166)
  • April 2015 (108)
  • May 2015 (116)
  • June 2015 (120)
  • July 2015 (148)
  • August 2015 (157)
  • September 2015 (188)
  • October 2015 (169)
  • November 2015 (173)
  • December 2015 (207)
  • 2014
  • March 2014 (2)
  • 2013
  • March 2013 (10)
  • June 2013 (1)
  • 2012
  • March 2012 (7)
  • April 2012 (15)
  • May 2012 (1)
  • July 2012 (1)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • October 2012 (2)
  • November 2012 (2)
  • December 2012 (1)
  • 2011
    2010
    2009
    2008
    2007
    2006
    2005
    2004
    2003
    2002
    2001
    2000
    1999
    1998
    1997
    1996
    1995
    1994
    1993
    1992
    1991
    1990
    1989
    1988
    1987
    1986
    1985
    1984
    1983
    1982
    1981
    1980
    1979
    1978
    1977
    1976
    1975
    1974
    1973
    1972
    1971
    1970
    1969
    1968
    1967
    1966
    1965
    1964
    1963
    1962
    1961
    1960
    1959
    1958
    1957
    1956
    1955
    1954
    1953
    1952
    1951
    1950