The Nairobi Magistrates Court is set to rule next week on a high-profile private prosecution bid targeting Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL) executives, amid questions over procedural compliance, legal authority, and the role of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
Lucas Onyina, Head of Station at the Magistrates Court, will on March 30 determine whether pleadings filed by JILK Construction Company Limited’s lawyer, Kibe Mungai, are valid, given that his practising certificate had expired at the time of filing.
Onyina will also consider Mungai’s effort to privately prosecute top KBL executives, including Managing Director Jane Karuku and Corporate Relations Director Eric Kiniti.
The case reached Onyina after Magistrate Theresa Nyangena recused herself. Nyangena had declined to certify the proposed private prosecution as urgent and directed that the ODPP be served. In response, Mungai lodged a complaint with the Chief Justice, demanding Nyangena’s recusal.
At the hearing before Onyina, Mungai requested that the executives be summoned, a hearing date fixed, and the court determine whether their lawyers should respond on their behalf.
Onyina, however, declined to consider the merits of the prosecution at this stage, noting that the matter had only just been assigned to him.
Cecil Miller, representing the executives, argued that summoning them was premature. He stressed that the ODPP had not yet granted leave for the private prosecution and could not act without such authorization.
Miller emphasized that the ODPP should first declare its position before any substantive steps are taken.
Adding to the complexity, it emerged that Mungai had only renewed his practising certificate on March 11, raising questions about the legality of actions taken prior to that date.
Respondents raised a preliminary objection challenging his competence, citing a March 23, 2026, application alleging that he lacked a valid practising certificate.
They urged the court to prioritize this application before addressing any substantive matters. Other counsel, including those representing the first respondent, supported this position, emphasizing that there are no criminal charges or accused persons until the ODPP grants leave.
Mungai, in reply, maintained that the case was properly before the court, that the ODPP had been duly served, and that the issues, allegedly involving serious misconduct, should not be dismissed on procedural grounds.
The case highlights the tension between private legal action and the authority of the ODPP, underscoring the procedural safeguards that govern private prosecutions in Kenya.
Observers note that the court’s forthcoming directions could clarify the boundaries of private prosecution rights, the role of procedural compliance, and the interaction between individual legal initiatives and the state’s prosecutorial authority.
