https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8411

Diageo PLC v Jilk Constructions Company Limited & 12 others (Constitutional Petition E313 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8411 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (15 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8411 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Constitutional and Human Rights Constitutional Petition E313 of 2026 RE Aburili, J June 15, 2026 Between Diageo PLC Petitioner and Jilk Constructions Company Limited 1st Respondent Director of Criminal Investigations 2nd Respondent Director of Public Prosecutions 3rd Respondent The Attorney General 4th Respondent Kenya Breweries Limited 5th Respondent East African Breweries Plc 6th Respondent and Sammy Maina Kamau 1st Interested Party Jane Karuku 2nd Interested Party Eric Kiniti 3rd Interested Party Brenda Daly 4th Interested Party Nicholas Quirke 5th Interested Party Betha Wanjiru Ndiran 6th Interested Party Mary Njeri Wanyutu 7th Interested Party Ruling 1.All parties’ counsel before court today are in agreement that this petition is related to the other matters pending before Hon. Mr. Justice Mutai hence, the need to have this matter placed before the Hon. Judge. In the circumstances, I direct that this matter be and is hereby placed before Justice Mutai for consideration of the merits thereof. 2.The petitioner also seeks interim conservatory orders which prayer is opposed by the 1st and 3rd respondents mainly on the grounds that they have filed a preliminary objection challenging jurisdiction of this court to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court and the mandate of ODPP and that the court will be issuing orders against parties who are not before this court and who include the Magistrate’s Court as respondents. 3.That whereas there are 4 complainants in the Magistrate’s Court’s intended private prosecution matter, only one of the complainants, being the 1st respondent is made a respondent to these proceedings. 4.It is also disclosed that the main application before the Magistrate’s Court is yet to set down for hearing and that what is due for hearing on 22/7/2026 is an application challenging the legal representation by Mr. Kibe Mungai, counsel for the complainants in the said proceedings. 5.I have considered the arguments for and against the prayer for interim conservatory orders and I am not satisfied that there is any substratum of this petition which will be dissipated before the parties are all heard on the application for conservatory orders, since the preliminary objections applications for striking out the petition and the application for conservatory orders can be heard together and expeditiously, once the parties comply with directions of the court on filing of responses, rejoinders and or submissions, as the case may be. 6.This court is not satisfied at this stage that seeking of leave of court to mount private prosecution is in itself a threat to or is a violation or amounts to a continuing violation of the petitioner’s rights that requires an interim relief before hearing all the parties on the matter. which all parties agree, is hotly contested, raising very serious issues, requiring interpartes substantive hearing before any conservatory orders can issue. 7.I therefore decline to grant interim relief by way of an interim conservatory order and direct parties to appear before Mutai J on 16/6/2026 for directions on the application for conservatory orders, the preliminary objection and the application to strike out the petition.I so order. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026R.E. ABURILIJUDGE