Skip to content

Nakuru Governor Kihika sues Senator Karanja over luxury hotel corruption claims

A high-stakes legal battle erupts as Kihika fights to clear her name. Did a senator's explosive claims cross the line—or expose the truth?

The image shows a political map of Nairobi, Kenya, with text and borders. It is a detailed map,...
The image shows a political map of Nairobi, Kenya, with text and borders. It is a detailed map, showing the various cities, towns, and other geographical features of the country.

Nakuru Governor Kihika sues Senator Karanja over luxury hotel corruption claims

Nakuru Governor Susan Kihika has filed a defamation lawsuit against Senator Tabitha Karanja. The case follows accusations that Kihika misused public funds to build a luxury hotel worth billions of shillings. Kihika denies all claims and insists the project was privately financed.

The dispute began on December 21, 2025, when Karanja allegedly made the remarks during a church service in Nakuru. She claimed Kihika had used public money to construct a family-owned hotel near State House, Nakuru, on land belonging to the Kenya Railways Corporation. The hotel, reportedly with around 280 rooms, was said to be worth billions.

Kihika's legal team responded in January 2026 with a demand for a retraction and apology. When Karanja failed to reply, Kihika proceeded with the lawsuit. In court filings, the governor argues that Karanja's statements were false, defamatory, and not protected by parliamentary privilege.

Kihika maintains she has never faced corruption allegations from any investigative or oversight body. She states the hotel was developed by Superlo Holdings Limited, a private company that leased the land from Kenya Railways Corporation in October 2023 for 45 years. Funding, she says, came from commercial loans and private investments, not public funds.

The court will now decide whether Karanja's statements were defamatory. If successful, Kihika seeks a formal declaration that the claims were false, along with a public retraction and apology. The case centres on whether the accusations were baseless and caused reputational harm.

Read also:

Latest