Let’s get straight to the point: what’s happening with the JILK vs. KBL dispute isn’t a quest for justice. It’s a masterclass in how to hold a multi-billion-dollar transaction hostage.
In a functioning democracy, disputes are settled in courtrooms with evidence, cross-examinations, and legal arguments.
But when a litigant realizes their evidence isn’t holding up, what do they do? They weaponize social media, write angry letters to the Chief Justice, threaten private prosecutions, and unleash bloggers to muddy the waters.
Take the Jilk sexual harassment claims. The public narrative by Jilk is that KBL covered it up. The actual documentary evidence shows KBL immediately asked Jilk for information, evidence, or witnesses of the alleged sexual harassment to aid in carrying out investigations as requested by JILK.
JILK never responded.
Even more revealing, in documents recently filed before the Chief Magistrate, the alleged victim confirms that it was actually JILK’s CEO, Pastor Engineer Sammy Maina Kamau, who prevailed on her not to pursue the matter.
Given that explanation, how is KBL to blame for the failure to follow up? KBL also clarified to Jilk that the accused was an employee of a third-party company, not KBL.
But facts don’t trend as well as outrage. Then there’s the whistleblower who filed a report with KBL. A detailed report of bribery and collusion between Pastor Sammy Kamau (Jilk) and Mutinda Mutuku QS (the Arbitrator and owner of Buildnett Limited) was lodged through a secure, auditable platform.
It wasn’t idle gossip; it was a serious allegation of a hijacked legal process. Instead of addressing the core issue whether the arbitration was corrupted the tactic has been to attack the whistleblower and pressure the judges handling the case – and so far two judges have walked!
When a magistrate simply asked for standard procedures to be followed, JILK’s lawyers bypassed the appeals process and wrote directly to the Chief Justice, accusing the magistrate of “gross incompetence.”
This isn’t lawyering; it’s intimidation. It’s a deliberate strategy to scare judicial officers into compliance.
This isn’t just about one brewery in Kisumu. Diageo is currently navigating a $2.3bn transaction with Asahi.
By creating a loud, chaotic public siege alongside their lawsuits, the goal is clear: create enough noise and reputational risk to force a payout.
If we allow litigants to bypass the courts and use Twitter mobs and intimidation tactics to extort settlements, we don’t just lose this case we lose the rule of law. Kenya’s commercial risk shouldn’t be defined by who can shout the loudest online. Justice must remain in the courtroom, not in the comments section.
