The ongoing, high-profile dispute where JILK Construction Company Limited is seeking to stop the sale of EABL shares by Diageo to Asahi, took an unexpected and dramatic detour in the High Court yesterday. What was scheduled as a routine highlighting of submissions regarding JILK’s application quickly turned into a procedural nightmare for JILK.
At the outset of the hearing, a bombshell was dropped regarding the competence of JILK’s advocate on record, Christopher Kibe Mungai: he did not hold a valid practicing certificate until 11 March 2026.
Backed by hard receipts, this courtroom revelation set the stage for a major legal showdown over the validity of JILK’s filings.
A check conducted on the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) online portal on 10 March 2026 confirmed that Kibe was listed as “Inactive” and therefore Not Entitled to Practice. The stated reason on the portal was glaring: the advocate had accumulated zero (0) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points for the year 2025.
Based on this information, an official letter was sent to the LSK on 11 March 2026, requesting confirmation of Kibe’s practicing status.
In a twist of timing that strains the limits of believability, on that exact same day, 11 March 2026, Kibe coincidentally applied and paid for his 2026 practicing certificate. If you believe in coincidences, this was a masterpiece.
This bizarre sequence of events raises serious administrative questions. How did the LSK issue him a practicing certificate if his portal clearly showed he had zero CPD points in 2025? Was he legally eligible for renewal under the LSK’s own strict continuing education mandates?
The LSK responded with a letter dated 12 March 2026, confirming that Kibe had indeed paid his fees on 11 March and concluded that the Advocate is legally eligible to practice law from 11 March 2026.
Cornered in court, counsel for JILK had no choice but to acknowledge that he indeed only obtained a valid practicing certificate on 11 March 2026, noting that he would respond to the issues once a formal application was filed.
Senior Counsel Nelson Havi was unusually quiet and had nothing to say or respond to these allegations against his co-counsel Kibe.
The Court directed that any application challenging the competence of JILK’s advocate be filed and served within two days.
Consequently, the ruling on JILK’s earlier application dated 17 February 2026 has been held in abeyance pending the determination of this new crisis.
The parties then proceeded to highlight their respective submissions, and the matter is scheduled for mention on 16 April 2026.
The legal consequences of this oversight could be catastrophic for JILK. In Kenya, the legal consequence of an advocate practicing without a certificate is that all pleadings filed and appearances made while unqualified are voidable and capable of being struck out entirely.
Kenyan courts have a rich history of dealing firmly with such anomalies, holding that pleadings drawn by an advocate without a valid practicing certificate are fundamentally defective and liable to be struck out under the Advocates Act. Similar standards apply in other Commonwealth jurisdictions like the UK and Australia, where strict adherence to certification is enforced to protect the public and the integrity of the judicial process.
As we look forward to seeing what will happen next in this high-profile case, one thing is certain: you really cannot make this stuff up.
Read Also: Courtroom or Court of Public Opinion? The High-Stakes Battle Around the KBL–JILK Dispute