The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the hearing of former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju’s Sh4.5 billion dispute with the East African Development Bank (EADB), nearly two years after four judges recused themselves from the case.

In a ruling delivered on Friday, September 25, 2026, the court lifted recusal orders that had barred Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Justices Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and William Ouko from handling the appeal.

The decision follows the withdrawal of a complaint that had triggered the judges’ recusal in 2024.

Tuju, through Dari Limited and other parties, had filed a complaint before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), alleging that the judges were biased and that the outcome of the case had been predetermined.

The complaint led the four judges to step aside on October 11, 2024, bringing proceedings in the appeal to a halt.

The matter remained in limbo until May 2026, when Tuju withdrew the JSC complaint unreservedly.

It was this change in circumstances that prompted the Supreme Court to reconsider the recusal orders.

A five-judge bench led by DCJ Mwilu ruled that the basis upon which the judges had recused themselves had ceased to exist following the withdrawal of the complaint.

Justice Mohammed Warsame is also part of the bench, following the death of Justice Mohammed Khadar Ibrahim.

The court was, however, careful to distinguish the latest decision from the circumstances surrounding the original recusal.

It stressed that lifting the recusal orders did not amount to a finding that the 2024 decision to step aside was wrong. Rather, the court said, the circumstances had materially changed since the orders were issued.

The development effectively removes a major procedural obstacle that had kept Tuju’s appeal from moving forward.

The dispute stems from a Sh4.5 billion loan-related claim involving Tuju, Dari Limited and EADB and has been before the courts for several years.

With the recusal orders now vacated, the Supreme Court can proceed with the appeal before the bench that had previously been barred from hearing it.

The parties are now expected to await further directions from the court on the next steps in the case.