It’s not a case of not paying debt. Raphael Tuju is facing what’s known as corporate heist disguised as a judgment.

The Tuju case is a legal masterclass in “bad faith.” The public is being told this is just a case of “failing to pay a loan.” But as a procedural enthusiast, I have looked at the total results.

Here is the full, unfiltered truth that the courts and “experts” are feigning ignorance about.

Direct disbursement to the vendor (The proxy buyer)

The East African Development Bank (EADB) never advanced the purchase funds to Raphael Tuju. Instead, they opted for direct disbursement, paying the vendors (the Scottish family) straight.

Legal reality: By paying the vendor directly, the bank exercised total control over the transaction from the start. They didn’t trust the borrower with the liquidity; they wanted the asset secured immediately.

Proxy theory: This suggests the bank used Tuju as a legal proxy to navigate the acquisition of the historic Dr Albert Patterson estate – a prime 20-acre Karen property – which they held as primary collateral the moment the straight payment was made.

The repudiatory breach: Breaking the “root” of the contract

Under both the Kenyan Law of Contract Act and English Common Law, a bank cannot claim a default if they are in First Breach.

The Breach: The bank paid for the land but refused to disburse the Ksh297 million ($2.009 million) designated for construction.

Doctrine of prevention: A party cannot sue for a breach that they themselves caused. By withholding construction funds, the bank “strangled” the project, making it impossible for Tuju to perform.

Repudiatory breach: By failing to provide development funds, the bank breached the “root” of the contract. You cannot demand a harvest when you intentionally withheld the water.

The KCB sabotage: Evidence of bad faith

When the project stalled due to the bank’s own breach, Tuju sought to redeem the mortgage through a buyout.

The offer: Tuju brought Kenya Commercial Bank to the table, ready to pay off the EADB in full.

The rejection: The EADB rejected the buyout and refused to provide a redemption statement.

The intent: A lender who refuses a full cash settlement from a reputable bank like KCB isn’t looking for “recovery” – they are looking for “forfeiture.” They didn’t want the shillings; they wanted the soil.

Judicial feigning of ignorance

Both the London and Kenyan courts are applying legal formalism while feigning ignorance of lender liability. They are allowing a regional bank to use technicalities to snatch a multi-billion shilling property after the bank itself sabotaged the borrower’s ability to pay.

A message to ‘experts’

I have seen educated legal practitioners, jurists and advocates who seem to have traded their morals and ethics for technicalities. They attack my concerns by saying I only argue on social media because I didn’t go to law school.

That is true. But let them know this: even if I am as small as a mosquito – and even if I only have a kindergarten certificate to my name – I can see foul-play when it is right in front of me.

I do not need a law degree to spot a heist. I am exercising my constitutional right to call out injustice and demand transparency. The law was made for the people, not just for those who can afford the gown.

• A Tell Media report / By Faith Mirunde Hakala – Ms Hakala is a public legal educator and a long-serving paralegal in Kenyan judiciary.