Court temporarily bars Standard from repeating claims linking Charlene Ruto to police uniform tender

The High Court has temporarily barred the Standard Group from republishing or circulating allegations linking President William Ruto’s daughter, Charlene Ruto, to the procurement of new Kenya Police Service uniforms.

The orders do not determine whether the allegations are true or false.

Instead, they put a temporary stop to further dissemination of the contested claims as the court considers Charlene’s application and gives the Standard Group an opportunity to respond.

The case follows a Standard newspaper investigation published on August 30 under the headline “THE TRAIL…”, alongside a page six story titled “Police uniform tender trail links Alusala teacher and First Family.”

The reports examined corporate records and other links around Nalitex Limited, a company the newspaper had associated with the reported KSh2.8 billion police uniform procurement.

Charlene has challenged the publication, arguing that it created the impression that she was involved in the tender, supplied goods under it or benefited from the procurement.

Her lawyers have asked the court to prevent the continued publication and circulation of what they describe as the disputed allegations.

What the court has ordered

In interim orders issued following Charlene’s application, the court granted the second prayer in her Notice of Motion.

The order effectively restrains the Standard Group from repeating, republishing, reposting, distributing or otherwise disseminating the allegations concerning Charlene and the police uniform procurement pending further directions.

The respondents have been given seven days to file their responses.

That is important because the interim order is not a final finding on the merits of the dispute.

The court has yet to determine the substantive questions raised by Charlene or the defence that may be presented by the Standard Group.

The matter is scheduled to come up for mention on October 19, 2026.

Charlene is also seeking further relief over the continued availability of the disputed material online, including removal or a corrective notice, according to the application.

NPS had already disputed the Nalitex connection

The court battle comes against the backdrop of a separate clarification from the National Police Service.

On August 30, NPS spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga said Nalitex Limited had not participated in the police uniform procurement at any stage.

He said the company was not awarded the contract, was not appointed as a subcontractor and had received neither a purchase order nor payment from the Service.

Instead, the NPS identified Bedi Investments Limited as the company awarded the contract to manufacture and stitch the new General Duty uniforms.

The Service said four local textile manufacturers had been invited to submit samples: Bedi Investments, Rivatex East Africa, Thika Textile Mills and Sunflag Textiles and Knitwear Mills.

According to the NPS, only Bedi Investments and Rivatex submitted samples within the required period. Bedi’s sample was subsequently selected after evaluation and public participation, before the procurement proceeded under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and related regulations.

“The entity referred to in the media reports as Nalitex Limited did not participate at any stage of the procurement process,” the NPS said.

The Service also described reports linking Nalitex to the tender as false and malicious.

Why Charlene went to court

Charlene’s case focuses on what she says the Standard publications communicated about her.

According to her court application, the reports expressly or by implication connected her to the procurement and created an impression that she had participated in, supplied under or benefited from the tender.

Her lawyers subsequently issued a demand and right-of-reply notice seeking a correction, retraction and apology.

They argued that leaving the material online meant the allegations could continue to circulate through digital platforms even after the initial publication.

That concern is at the centre of the interim application.

The court is now being asked to consider not only the original publication but also the continuing impact of material that remains accessible and can be shared online.

The wider uniform tender controversy

The dispute comes only weeks after President William Ruto unveiled the new General Duty police uniform at the Kenya Police Training College in Kiganjo.

The new attire replaced the Persian-blue uniform introduced in 2018.

The NPS has said the change was part of broader police reforms and followed consultations in which officers expressed dissatisfaction with the previous uniform. It said the Kenya Police Service Uniform Committee subsequently worked with the Kenya Bureau of Standards to develop the new specifications.

But the procurement has attracted public scrutiny, particularly over the identity of the contractor and the reported cost.

The Standard’s August 30 investigation raised questions about Nalitex’s corporate records, including its registered address and connections involving businessman Charles Tela Alusala. The report also examined links between Alusala and entities associated with the President’s family.

Importantly, the investigation itself acknowledged that some of those connections did not, on their own, establish ownership or control of Nalitex.

The NPS has since gone further by denying that Nalitex had any role in the procurement.

What the court case does — and does not — establish

The interim order should not be read as a judicial finding that the Standard’s reporting was fabricated or that every issue raised by the investigation has been settled.

Nor does it establish that Charlene was involved in the procurement.

Those are matters that remain contested.

What has changed is that the publication dispute is now before the High Court, and the contested allegations cannot be freely republished by the Standard Group while the interim order remains in force.

The Standard Group has an opportunity to respond to Charlene’s application before the court considers the substantive issues.

For now, the case puts a legal spotlight on two separate questions: what evidence supports the allegations made in the publication, and whether the reporting unlawfully linked Charlene Ruto to a government procurement in which the NPS says she had no role.

The next major step is expected when the matter returns to court on October 19.

About the Author

Maureen Onyango is a journalist passionate about storytelling, life coaching and spiritual lessons. She studied at the Kenya Institute of Management and enjoys telling stories that inform, inspire and empower communities.