Court Mulls Procedural Hurdles in Private Prosecution Bid Against KBL Executives
The Magistrates Court in Nairobi is set to issue directions next week on a private prosecution bid against Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL) executives, amid disputes over procedural compliance and the validity of the applicant’s legal representation.
Lucas Onyina, Head of Station at the Nairobi Magistrates Court, will on March 30 determine whether pleadings filed by JILK Construction Company Limited’s lawyer, Kibe Mungai, who had an expired practising certificate at the time, can proceed.
Onyina will also consider Mungai’s attempt to privately prosecute top KBL executives, including Managing Director Jane Karuku and Corporate Relations Director Eric Kiniti.
The matter arose after Magistrate Theresa Nyangena recused herself following complaints from Mungai. Nyangena had declined to certify the 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.
At the hearing before Onyina, Mungai sought to move the case forward by requesting the court to summon the executives, fix a hearing date, and determine whether their lawyers should respond on their behalf.
Onyina, however, declined to entertain discussions on the merits, noting that the matter had only just been assigned to him following Nyangena’s recusal.
Cecil Miller, representing the executives, argued that the summons was premature. He stressed that the ODPP had not yet granted leave for the private prosecution and could not act without such authorization.
Miller further noted that the ODPP should first be allowed to communicate its position before any substantive steps are taken.
Adding to the legal complexities, it emerged that Mungai had only renewed his practising certificate on March 11, raising concerns about the validity of his previous actions on behalf of JILK.
Respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging Mungai’s competence, citing a March 23, 2026, application alleging that he lacked a valid practising certificate when filing the pleadings.
They urged the court to address this application before considering any substantive requests. Other counsel, including those for the first respondent, supported this position, emphasizing that no criminal charges exist and there are no accused persons until the ODPP grants leave.
In his response, Mungai maintained that the case was properly before the court, that the ODPP had been duly served, and that the issues, which allegedly involve serious misconduct, should not be dismissed on procedural grounds.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between procedural compliance and claims of urgency in private prosecutions, illustrating how questions over certification, legal representation, and official leave can influence the pace and direction of high-stakes litigation.
As the court prepares to issue its directions, legal analysts note that the outcome could set important precedents for how procedural technicalities are weighed against urgent claims in private prosecutions.