Uncertainty is growing around the proposed sale of East African Breweries Limited (EABL) shares after fresh legal complications emerged in the High Court, potentially affecting the progress of the transaction between Diageo and Asahi Group Holdings.
The case, filed by JILK Construction Company Limited in an attempt to block the deal, was expected to proceed with routine submissions. However, proceedings took an unexpected turn after questions arose over the legal standing of JILK’s advocate, Christopher Kibe Mungai.
It emerged in court that the advocate only obtained a valid practising certificate on March 11, 2026. Records from the Law Society of Kenya indicated that as of March 10, he was listed as “inactive” and not authorised to practise law.
The development has introduced a new layer of uncertainty to the case, as it raises questions about the validity of filings made before the certificate was issued. Under Kenyan law, such filings can be challenged and may be struck out, depending on the court’s determination.
For the parties involved in the share sale, the delay could have wider implications. High-value transactions often depend on predictable legal timelines, and any procedural setbacks in court can slow down or complicate the completion of deals.
The court has since directed that any application challenging the advocate’s competence be filed within two days, effectively pausing a ruling on JILK’s earlier application.
Despite the setback, both sides proceeded to highlight submissions, and the matter is now scheduled for mention on April 16, 2026.
Legal analysts say the outcome of the certification issue could directly influence the direction of the case. If the court finds that key filings are invalid, it may weaken JILK’s challenge, potentially clearing the way for the transaction to proceed.
On the other hand, if the matter leads to further delays or fresh filings, it could prolong the legal process and keep the deal in limbo for longer than expected.
As the situation unfolds, attention will remain on the High Court—not just for the outcome of the dispute, but for signals on how quickly the transaction between Diageo and Asahi Group Holdings can move forward.
