A monumental legal battle spanning nearly two decades has culminated in a stunning reversal, after the High Court nullified a significant monetary award, citing that it was secured through perjury. The case, a protracted and acrimonious dispute between investors Giovanni Gnecchi Ruscone and the estate of the late Hermanus Phillipus Steyn, exposes troubling vulnerabilities within the Kenyan judicial system to fraudulent claims.

This ruling is more than a simple reversal; it is a direct challenge to the finality of court decisions when faced with evidence of calculated deception. For Kenyans, it raises critical questions about the reliability of the justice system in safeguarding investments and contractual rights, a cornerstone of economic stability. The case serves as a stark reminder that the integrity of the courts is paramount for both local and foreign investor confidence.

The dispute traces its origins to a 1993 commission agreement between the two men. This agreement entitled Ruscone to a 10% commission on compensation Steyn was to receive from the Tanzanian government for the acquisition of agricultural and livestock companies in 1981. In 2005, Ruscone sued Steyn in Kenya, successfully arguing that the compensation had been paid and that he was owed his commission. Based on testimony later deemed false, the High Court in 2007 awarded Ruscone $1.2 million (approx. KES 155 million at the time).

A Judgment Built on Falsehoods

The turning point came years later when Steyn’s side unearthed new evidence: a 2010 arbitral award from Tanzania. This award confirmed that the Tanzanian government had, in fact, *not* paid the $12 million (approx. KES 1.5 billion) compensation to Steyn, directly contradicting the testimony given in the Kenyan court. Armed with this proof, Steyn’s estate returned to the High Court, arguing the 2007 judgment was procured through deliberate fraud.

The High Court concurred in a decisive May 2025 judgment, which the Court of Appeal recently upheld on December 5, 2025. The court made several critical findings:

• The original 2007 judgment was procured through deliberate fraud and perjury.
• The award, which with interest had ballooned to $6.5 million (approx. KES 842 million), was set aside.
• A permanent injunction was issued, restraining Ruscone from ever benefiting from the fraudulent judgment.
• The court ordered a full retrial of Ruscone's original commission claim.

Implications for Justice and Investment

This case resonates far beyond the courtroom. Allegations of corruption and falling public confidence have been noted as significant risks for businesses operating in Kenya. According to a survey by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), a notable percentage of firms lack confidence in the court system's ability to uphold contract and property rights in business disputes. Such perceptions can deter foreign investment and complicate the economic landscape.

While the judiciary has committed to reforms aimed at expediting commercial disputes and enhancing integrity, this case highlights the immense challenge of rooting out fraudulent practices. The court, in its ruling, held that a judgment founded on deliberate falsehoods “cannot be allowed to stand,” emphasizing that perjury is a direct assault on the foundation of justice.

As the matter heads for a retrial, the legal community and investors will be watching closely. Ruscone has indicated his intention to appeal the latest decision, ensuring this complex legal saga is far from over. The ultimate outcome will send a powerful signal about the judiciary's capacity to self-correct and defend its processes from manipulation, a critical factor for Kenya's economic future.