A major procedural issue has emerged in the ongoing multi-billion shilling dispute between JILK Construction and East African Breweries Limited, a subsidiary of Diageo, after court proceedings revealed that one of the advocates on record may not have been legally authorized to practice at the time key filings were made.
At the center of the matter is Christopher Kibe Mungai, counsel for JILK Construction.
A review of records from the Law Society of Kenya portal dated 10 March 2026 listed him as inactive and not entitled to practice.
The status was attributed to failure to meet Continuing Professional Development requirements for the year 2025.
This revelation raises an immediate legal question. If an advocate is not authorized to practice, what becomes of the pleadings they file in court?
The issue did not remain theoretical for long. On 11 March, opposing counsel formally sought clarification from the Law Society of Kenya regarding the advocate’s status.
On that very same day, the advocate applied for and paid for his 2026 practicing certificate. The application was processed, and he was cleared to practice from that date.
The timing has drawn attention within legal circles.
Was this a routine administrative delay, or did the inquiry trigger urgent compliance?
Under Kenyan law, pleadings filed by an unlicensed advocate are considered defective and may be struck out. This is not a minor technicality. It goes to the root of legal representation and the integrity of court proceedings.
The presiding judge has now directed that a formal application be filed to challenge the validity of the affected pleadings.
The outcome of that application could determine whether portions of the case will stand or fall.
Beyond the immediate dispute, the development raises broader concerns about compliance and oversight within the legal profession.
How many cases could be affected if similar lapses go unnoticed? And what safeguards exist to ensure that advocates appearing in court are fully compliant at all times?
