The ongoing legal battle surrounding the proposed Sh340 billion sale of Diageo’s stake in East African Breweries Limited (EABL) to Japan’s Asahi Group Holdings has evolved into more than a corporate dispute. It has become a test of public confidence in Kenya’s judicial system.
The transaction has faced multiple legal challenges since it was announced in December 2025. Courts in Nairobi dismissed several attempts to stop the deal, including petitions linked to distributor Bia Tosha and contractor JILK Construction. Yet a fresh petition filed in Machakos resulted in conservatory orders preserving the status quo pending further hearings.
At the centre of the latest controversy is Justice Josephine Mong’are of the High Court in Machakos, whose orders temporarily halted implementation of the transaction. Her decision has triggered intense debate within legal and business circles.
law and authority lawyer concept, judgment gavel hammer in court courtroom for crime judgement legislation and judicial decision, judge having justice of punishment guilt and criminal verdict legal
Former Law Society of Kenya President Nelson Havi publicly questioned whether Justice Mong’are should continue handling disputes, citing what he described as unresolved allegations that should first be addressed through the appropriate institutions. Those allegations remain allegations and have not been proven in court. Public officials and judges are entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.
However, the larger concern raised by the EABL matter is not merely about one judge. It is about consistency in judicial decision-making. When multiple courts of equal jurisdiction issue differing outcomes touching on the same transaction, questions inevitably arise regarding legal certainty and predictability.
EABL has now formally sought the intervention of Chief Justice Martha Koome, arguing that multiple cases filed in different courts amount to forum shopping. The company says litigants whose applications were unsuccessful in Nairobi have continued filing related matters elsewhere, creating the risk of conflicting orders.
For investors, this uncertainty matters. The EABL-Asahi transaction is one of the largest corporate deals in Kenya’s history. Delays and contradictory court decisions can affect investor confidence and Kenya’s reputation as a destination for capital.
Judges must remain independent and free from external pressure. At the same time, the judiciary must appreciate that public confidence depends on transparency, consistency, and accountability. Where questions arise, they should be addressed openly through established judicial and constitutional mechanisms.
The EABL case should therefore serve as a wake-up call. Kenya needs a judicial system that protects access to justice while preventing abuse of court processes. It also needs the timely resolution of concerns that could undermine confidence in the courts.
The issue is bigger than one transaction and bigger than one judge. It is about ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.
