High-Stakes Case Takes Bizarre Turn as JILK Lawyer Caught Practicing Without a Certificate

The high-profile legal battle where JILK Construction Company Limited is trying to stop the sale of EABL shares by Diageo to Asahi took an unexpected and dramatic twist in the High Court yesterday.

A hearing that was meant to be a routine highlighting of submissions regarding JILK’s application quickly turned into a procedural nightmare for the company.

At the very start of the session, a bombshell was revealed about JILK’s advocate on record, Christopher Kibe Mungai: he did not hold a valid practicing certificate until 11 March 2026.

This revelation, supported by hard receipts, immediately set the stage for a major confrontation over the validity of JILK’s court filings.

A check on the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) online portal on 10 March 2026 confirmed that Kibe was listed as “Inactive” and therefore not entitled to practice.

The portal stated a glaring reason: the advocate had accumulated zero (0) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points for the year 2025.

Based on this information, an official letter was sent to the LSK on 11 March 2026 requesting confirmation of Kibe’s practicing status.

In a twist that seems almost unbelievable, on the very same day—11 March 2026—Kibe coincidentally applied and paid for his 2026 practicing certificate. If coincidences can be orchestrated, this was a masterstroke.

This sequence of events raises serious administrative and procedural questions: how did the LSK issue him a certificate when the portal clearly showed he had zero CPD points in 2025? Was he legally eligible for renewal under the LSK’s strict continuing education requirements?

The LSK responded with a letter dated 12 March 2026, confirming that Kibe had indeed paid his fees on 11 March and concluding that he is legally eligible to practice law from 11 March 2026.

Cornered in court, counsel for JILK had no choice but to acknowledge that he only obtained a valid certificate on 11 March 2026 and stated he would respond to the issues once a formal application was filed.

Senior Counsel Nelson Havi was unusually silent, offering no response to the allegations against his co-counsel Kibe.

The Court directed that any application challenging the competence of JILK’s advocate must be filed and served within two days. As a result, the ruling on JILK’s earlier application dated 17 February 2026 has been placed in abeyance pending the resolution of this certification crisis.

The parties then proceeded to highlight their submissions, and the matter is scheduled for mention on 16 April 2026.

The implications for JILK could be severe. In Kenya, advocates practicing without a valid certificate risk having all pleadings and appearances deemed voidable, potentially struck out entirely.

Courts in Kenya have consistently ruled that pleadings prepared by an unqualified advocate are fundamentally defective under the Advocates Act.

Similar standards apply in other Commonwealth countries such as the UK and Australia, where certification is strictly enforced to protect both the public and the integrity of the judicial process.

As this high-profile case unfolds, it has become a cautionary tale about accountability, procedural compliance, and the critical importance of verification in Kenya’s legal system.

One thing is clear: the courtroom drama surrounding JILK’s lawyer is unprecedented, and you really cannot make this stuff up.