The ongoing JILK Construction Company Limited case seeking to block the sale of EABL shares by Diageo to Asahi Group Holdings has now become a lightning rod for discussions about legal accountability and oversight.
What started as a routine court session to highlight submissions suddenly turned into a procedural challenge when it emerged that JILK’s advocate on record, Christopher Kibe Mungai, had only obtained a valid practising certificate on March 11, 2026.
According to the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) portal, Kibe was listed as “inactive” on March 10, due to accumulating zero Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points for 2025.
This sequence of events has raised eyebrows across the legal community. How could a practising certificate be issued despite the portal indicating non-compliance with mandatory CPD requirements? And what does this say about the robustness of the LSK’s verification processes?
The LSK later confirmed on March 12 that Kibe’s certificate was valid from March 11, 2026. However, this timeline has left questions over the legality of filings submitted before that date. Under the Advocates Act, pleadings filed by an advocate without a valid certificate can be voided, potentially upending entire cases.
In court, JILK’s team acknowledged the certification issue and said they would respond once a formal application challenging the advocate’s competence is filed. Senior Counsel Nelson Havi remained silent during the proceedings.
The High Court has directed that any application challenging the advocate’s competence be filed and served within two days, putting the ruling on JILK’s February 17, 2026 application on hold. The case is now scheduled for mention on April 16, 2026.
Legal analysts say the situation highlights deeper concerns about oversight and accountability in the legal profession. Beyond the immediate case, it raises questions about how law firms, clients, and courts can ensure that all advocates comply with professional standards, and how lapses could affect high-stakes commercial cases.
For JILK, the consequences could be severe. If the court rules that filings made before March 11 are invalid, the company may need to refile documents or even risk losing standing in the dispute. This procedural wrinkle has, for now, shifted the focus from the commercial implications of the EABL share sale to the integrity of the legal process itself.
As the legal community and the public await the court’s next move, this case is serving as a cautionary tale about the importance of strict compliance, timely certification, and professional accountability in Kenya’s legal system.
