Magistrates Court to Rule on Private Prosecution Bid Against KBL Executives

The Nairobi Magistrates Court is set to issue a ruling next week on a high-profile private prosecution bid against Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL) executives, bringing into focus the delicate balance between private legal initiatives and institutional oversight by 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 matter reached Onyina following the recusal of Magistrate Theresa Nyangena. Nyangena had declined to certify the proposed private prosecution as urgent and directed that the ODPP be served, prompting Mungai to lodge a formal complaint with the Chief Justice and demand her recusal. During 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 file had only just been assigned to him. Cecil Miller, representing the executives, argued that summoning them was premature. He emphasized that the ODPP had not yet granted leave for the private prosecution and could not act without such authorization. Miller insisted that the ODPP should first be allowed to declare its position before any substantive action is taken. Further complicating the proceedings, it emerged that Mungai had only renewed his practising certificate on March 11, raising questions about the legality of actions he had 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 address this matter before considering any substantive prayers. Other counsel, including those representing the first respondent, supported this position, noting that there are no criminal charges or accused persons until leave is granted by the ODPP. In his reply, Mungai maintained that the matter was properly before the court, that the ODPP had been duly served, and that allegations involving serious misconduct should not be dismissed on procedural grounds. Legal observers note that this case underscores the tension between individual attempts to seek justice and institutional oversight, highlighting the procedural safeguards that govern private prosecutions in Kenya. The court’s forthcoming directions could clarify the limits of private legal action, the authority of the ODPP, and the judicial checks that ensure both procedural compliance and fairness in high-profile corporate cases.