A procedural development in the dispute between JILK Construction and East African Breweries Limited has brought renewed attention to the importance of compliance within legal practice.
During court proceedings, it emerged that Christopher Kibe Mungai had been listed as inactive by the Law Society of Kenya as of 10 March 2026. The designation indicated that he was not authorized to practice law due to unmet Continuing Professional Development requirements.
This revelation introduces a fundamental legal concern.
Can a court process remain valid if one of the advocates involved was not licensed at the time of filing?
The issue took a decisive turn on 11 March when opposing counsel formally sought clarification from the Law Society of Kenya. On the same day, the advocate regularized his status by applying for and obtaining a practicing certificate.
The speed with which the status changed has not gone unnoticed.
Does this sequence reflect administrative efficiency, or does it point to reactive compliance under scrutiny?
Kenyan courts have previously treated filings by unlicensed advocates as invalid. The rationale is rooted in maintaining the integrity of the legal system. If representation is not lawful, the resulting documents cannot stand unchallenged.
The court has now invited a formal application to determine the status of the pleadings in question. The decision that follows will likely influence not only this case but also future interpretations of similar situations.
At a broader level, the case raises a question about professional accountability.
Should stricter enforcement mechanisms be introduced to ensure that only duly licensed advocates can act in court at any given time?
