The High Court’s refusal to halt the Asahi-Diageo deal has brought into focus the judiciary’s cautious approach in intervening in complex commercial transactions.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye on Wednesday declined to grant conservatory orders sought by distributor Bia Tosha, signaling that courts may be reluctant to disrupt high-value corporate deals without clear and direct legal grounds.
Bia Tosha had moved to court seeking to suspend the proposed share transfer involving Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL), East African Breweries Limited (EABL), Diageo and United Distillers Vintners (UDV), arguing that the transaction could prejudice its ongoing distributorship dispute.
However, the respondents challenged that position, insisting that the distributor had failed to demonstrate any direct link between its claims and the transaction.
Senior Counsel George Oraro, appearing for EABL, told the court that Bia Tosha’s case does not hinge on the outcome of the deal, maintaining that any financial claims can still be settled regardless of the share transfer.
Diageo’s lawyer, Njoroge Regeru, warned against what he termed as the “weaponisation” of conservatory orders, arguing that granting such relief would open the door for parties to interfere with legitimate business operations under the guise of legal disputes.
Senior Counsel Githu Muigai, representing Cogno Ventures Limited, reinforced the argument, stating that issuing the orders sought would amount to prematurely deciding the case before a full hearing.
The matter now awaits a ruling on April 9, 2026, with the outcome expected to not only shape the future of the dispute but also set a precedent on how far courts can go in stopping major corporate transactions at the interim stage.
