East African Breweries has asked Kenya’s Chief Justice Martha Koome to intervene after a fourth legal challenge to Diageo’s $2.3 billion sale of its EABL stake to Japan’s Asahi produced conflicting court orders from different jurisdictions.
In a letter dated 23 June 2026, EABL’s lawyers at Iseme, Kamau & Maema Advocates urged Koome to take administrative steps to consolidate proceedings they described as fragmented across High Court stations. The core concern is jurisdictional: two High Court divisions are now dealing with the same transaction, and their orders have diverged.
The conflict traces to 18 June. On that date, a Nairobi court dismissed an application by JILK Construction Company seeking to stop the deal. Hours later, in Machakos, Justice Josephine Mong’are granted conservatory orders halting the transaction in a petition filed by Christine Irungu, a minority shareholder. Four days later, on 22 June, another Nairobi judge declined interim orders in a separate application, noting that public interest favoured the deal proceeding.
EABL is not challenging the Machakos court’s jurisdiction. The letter to the Chief Justice argues the petition represents forum shopping: an attempt to obtain from one High Court what had already been denied by courts of concurrent jurisdiction in Nairobi. The lawyers described the pattern as “a clear abuse of the court process.”
“EABL said it was unfortunate that a deal that will benefit the Kenyan economy has been repeatedly targeted through coordinated litigation tactics designed to disrupt the transaction for private commercial purposes.” — EABL statement, June 2026
Three prior challenges have failed in succession. Bia Tosha Distributors, whose litigation against EABL dates to 2016, had its application dismissed on 9 April. JILK’s challenge fell on 18 June. A third applicant was turned away on 22 June. Koome’s office had not responded to the letter as of 24 June.
For Diageo and Asahi, the commercial risk is timing. The deal operates under contractual and regulatory deadlines spanning multiple countries, and EABL’s letter explicitly flagged the “time-sensitive” nature of those obligations. A contested Machakos injunction that lingers without coordination creates the kind of procedural ambiguity that complicates cross-border regulatory clearances already in motion.
Drinkabl.media’s coverage of the third court dismissal traced the narrowing legal options for challengers after the Nairobi courts repeatedly declined to engage the merits of blocking a share transfer over distribution and construction disputes. The Machakos order reopens that question through a different procedural door: minority shareholder rights.
Whether Koome acts administratively, and how quickly, now determines whether EABL can keep the deal on its H2 2026 timeline or faces another round of hearings before a transaction that has already survived three court challenges can complete.
READ MORE
- Kenyan court rejects third bid to halt Diageo’s $2.3bn EABL exit
- East Africa vs West Africa: Two Distinct Paths for Africa’s Beverage Industry
- Why Premium Hospitality Has Become EABL’s Most Powerful Marketing Channel
