The Magistrates Court in Nairobi is set to give directions next week in the ongoing dispute between JILK Construction Company Limited and Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL), amid procedural challenges and questions over the competence of the applicant’s lawyer.
Lucas Onyina, Head of Station at the Nairobi Magistrates Court, will on March 30 rule on whether pleadings filed by Kibe Mungai, JILK’s lawyer, can proceed.
Mungai’s bid seeks to privately prosecute top KBL executives, including Managing Director Jane Karuku and Corporate Relations Director Eric Kiniti, for alleged misconduct.
The case was referred to Onyina after Magistrate Theresa Nyangena recused herself following complaints from Mungai. Nyangena had declined to certify the proposed private prosecution as urgent and directed that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) be served, prompting Mungai to write to the Chief Justice demanding her recusal.
Mungai sought to push the matter forward, requesting that the executives be summoned, a hearing date fixed, and a determination made on whether their lawyers should respond on their behalf.
Onyina, however, declined to entertain discussions on the merits of the prosecution at this stage, noting that the file had only just been placed before him after Nyangena’s recusal.
Cecil Miller, representing the KBL executives, argued that Mungai’s requests were premature. He stated that the ODPP had not yet granted leave for the private prosecution to proceed and that the matter could not move forward without such authorization.
Miller emphasized that the ODPP should first declare its position before any substantive action is taken.
Complicating the proceedings, it emerged that Mungai had only renewed his practising certificate on March 11, raising concerns about the validity of his legal actions on behalf of JILK prior to that date.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of Mungai, citing a March 23, 2026, application alleging that he lacked a valid practising certificate.
They urged the court to prioritize this application before considering any substantive matters. Other counsel, including those for the first respondent, supported this position, emphasizing that there are currently no criminal charges and no accused persons until the ODPP grants leave.
In his defense, Mungai maintained that the matter was properly before the court, that the ODPP had been duly served, and that the issues involved—allegedly touching on serious corporate misconduct—should not be dismissed on procedural grounds.
This case highlights the tension between procedural technicalities and efforts to hold corporate executives accountable, as the court navigates the competing interests of legal compliance, professional certification, and claims of misconduct within Kenya’s corporate sector.
