A legal dispute involving Kenya Breweries Limited and contractor JILK Construction Limited has escalated into a multi-billion shilling battle, drawing attention to Kenya’s arbitration system and raising questions about how commercial disputes should be handled while cases are before the courts.
At the centre of the row is a contested arbitration award linked to construction works carried out at the Kisumu brewery plant.
The disagreement initially revolved around a claim of about KSh163 million, but the amount later rose sharply during arbitration proceedings to KSh2.4 billion, a figure Kenya Breweries has challenged in court.
The dispute traces back to renovation and construction work undertaken at the Kisumu brewery facility, which resumed operations in 2019 after refurbishment. While most payments related to the project were settled, disagreements emerged over the contractor’s final claims.
To resolve the dispute, the matter was referred to arbitration. However, Kenya Breweries argues that irregularities during the arbitration process led to the disputed amount increasing significantly beyond the original claim. JILK Construction has rejected the allegations and maintains that the arbitration outcome was valid.
The case took another turn after Kenya Breweries received a whistleblower report in July 2022 raising concerns about possible bias, conflict of interest and corruption during the arbitration proceedings. The company says it forwarded the allegations to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations for further review.
JILK Construction later dismissed the claims, arguing that the whistleblower report was fabricated.
Beyond the legal contest itself, the dispute has also generated debate after a series of actions that appear to extend the conflict beyond the courtroom.
Among them was a letter written on March 10, 2026 by lawyers representing the contractor to the Chief Justice seeking the removal of Magistrate T. Nyangena, who was handling a related private prosecution application.
The lawyers accused the magistrate of misconduct and judicial compromise. However, court records indicate that the magistrate had declined to treat the application as urgent and directed that the matter be served on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions before setting a mention date.
Legal analysts note that while litigants are free to challenge court decisions, such disputes are normally addressed through formal legal channels including appeals or recusal applications.
Observers say the high-profile nature of the KBL–JILK dispute underscores the importance of maintaining confidence in Kenya’s legal and arbitration systems, particularly as the country seeks to position itself as a reliable destination for commercial dispute resolution.
With the matter now firmly before the courts, both parties are expected to present their arguments and evidence through the judicial process, where a final determination on the contested arbitration award will ultimately be made.