The High Court has issued interim orders restraining the Standard Group from repeating, republishing, reposting, distributing or otherwise disseminating allegations linking President William Ruto’s daughter, Charlene Ruto, to the procurement of uniforms for the Kenya Police Service. The orders were issued after Charlene moved to court to challenge a publication by The Standard dated August 30, 2026, which she claims associated her with an alleged Ksh2.8 billion police uniform procurement contract.
The publication featured a front-page story titled “THE TRAIL…” and a separate article on page six headlined “Police uniform tender trail links Alusala teacher and First Family.”
Charlene Ruto challenges Standard publication
Through her lawyers, Charlene told the court that the publications expressly or indirectly linked her to the police uniform tender. She argued that the reports created an impression that she had taken part in the procurement process, supplied goods or services under the tender, or benefited from the alleged contract.
Charlene has disputed any such association and sought the intervention of the court to prevent what she considers further dissemination of the allegations. Her application is centered on the claim that the reports portrayed her as having a role in the procurement despite what she says are subsequent clarifications by the National Police Service.
NPS clarification on police uniform tender
According to documents presented before the court, the National Police Service (NPS) subsequently clarified the position regarding Nalitex Limited, a company mentioned in relation to the procurement. The NPS stated that Nalitex Limited did not participate in the procurement process and was not awarded the contract.
The police service further indicated that the company was not a subcontractor and did not receive a purchase order or payment in connection with the tender. Court documents instead identify Bedi Investments Limited as the contractor involved in the procurement. Charlene relied on the clarification in arguing that the publications should not continue to present her as having participated in or benefited from the tender without evidence establishing such involvement.
Demand for correction and apology
The court was also told that Charlene had previously served the Standard with a written demand and right-of-reply notice. Through the notice, she sought a correction and retraction of the disputed reports, as well as an apology over what she described as the inaccurate association between herself and the police uniform procurement.
She argued that the disputed content remained accessible on digital platforms despite the demand. According to her application, the continued availability of the reports meant that the allegations could still be shared, reposted and circulated online, potentially prolonging what she described as the harm caused by the publications.
Orders sought by Charlene
In her application, Charlene asked the court to restrain the respondents from repeating, republishing, reposting, distributing or otherwise disseminating the same allegations, or substantially similar claims, concerning her alleged involvement in the police uniform procurement. She sought to have any further publication of such allegations restricted unless there was verified evidence demonstrating that she had actually participated in or benefited from the procurement.
Charlene also asked the court to address the digital versions of the disputed reports. She sought an order requiring the Standard to disable or remove the online and digital versions of the publications pending determination of the case. Alternatively, she asked that a clear corrective notice be placed on the reports if they remained available online while continuing to portray her as having participated in, supplied under or benefited from the police uniform tender.
High Court issues interim orders
The High Court granted interim prayer number two in Charlene’s Notice of Motion. The order effectively prevents the further dissemination of the contested allegations while the court process continues. The interim order does not, by itself, determine the substantive dispute between Charlene and the Standard Group. The respondents will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present their position before the court considers the wider issues raised in the case.
The respondents have been given seven days to file their responses to Charlene’s application. The court will then consider the parties’ respective positions as the matter progresses.
Case to be mentioned in October
The case has been scheduled for mention on October 19, 2026, when the court is expected to give further directions on the application. The dispute comes amid continued scrutiny of public procurement and the reporting of contracts involving government institutions.
For now, the interim orders specifically concern the publication and further dissemination of the allegations linking Charlene Ruto to the Kenya Police Service uniform procurement.
