The ongoing, high-profile case where JILK Construction Company Limited is seeking to block the sale of EABL shares by Diageo to Asahi took a dramatic turn in the High Court yesterday, raising serious questions about legal ethics and professional accountability.
What was intended as a routine hearing on JILK’s application quickly turned into a crisis for the company.
The courtroom bombshell came at the start of the proceedings: JILK’s advocate on record, Christopher Kibe Mungai, did not hold a valid practicing certificate until 11 March 2026.
Supported by official receipts, this revelation immediately cast doubt on the validity of all filings submitted by the company and exposed potential breaches of professional standards.
A review of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) online portal on 10 March 2026 showed Kibe listed as “Inactive” and therefore not entitled to practice. The reason: he had zero (0) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points for 2025.
On 11 March 2026—the same day an official letter was sent to LSK requesting confirmation—Kibe coincidentally applied for and paid for his 2026 certificate. The timing has drawn scrutiny, highlighting gaps in regulatory oversight and adherence to professional obligations.
The LSK responded on 12 March 2026, confirming that Kibe was legally eligible to practice from 11 March 2026. In court, counsel for JILK acknowledged the sequence of events, noting that a formal response would follow once an application was filed.
Senior Counsel Nelson Havi remained silent on the allegations, creating an unusually tense courtroom atmosphere.
The Court directed that any challenge to Kibe’s competence be filed and served within two days. Consequently, the ruling on JILK’s earlier application dated 17 February 2026 has been put on hold pending resolution of this new ethical and legal crisis.
Submissions from both parties continued, with the matter scheduled for mention on 16 April 2026.
Legal experts warn that practicing without a valid certificate could have catastrophic consequences. In Kenya, any pleadings filed or appearances made while unqualified are voidable and could be struck out entirely.
Courts have consistently held that filings by unqualified advocates are fundamentally defective under the Advocates Act.
Comparable standards exist in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, including the UK and Australia, where strict adherence to certification is enforced to maintain the integrity of the legal system.
This incident has sparked a broader debate about professional accountability, regulatory oversight, and ethical standards within Kenya’s legal profession. Questions are being raised about how the LSK monitors compliance, ensures continuing professional development, and enforces strict adherence to certification requirements. The JILK case serves as a stark reminder that even high-profile cases are not immune from scrutiny, and the integrity of the legal system remains paramount.
As the legal and professional communities watch closely, one fact is undeniable: this high-profile case has turned into a cautionary tale about ethics, compliance, and the consequences of procedural lapses in the practice of law.
Got a news tip? Please send us an email at info@nairobidaily.com
