The High Court has intervened to streamline proceedings and set the record straight in the decade-old legal dispute between Bia Tosha Distributors Limited and East African Breweries PLC (EABL).
During a morning court session dedicated to managing the complex litigation, the presiding Judge directed that before any further substantive hearings take place, the court must first determine exactly which version of the petition is officially on record.
Over the years, the case has accumulated numerous filings, including pending applications and a Further Amended Petition filed in January 2026 by Bia Tosha – which is designed to stop the Diageo-Asahi sale by way of injunction and to introduce a colossal money claim of KES 45Bn.
These new additions have been opposed by EABL and Diageo as the matter is filed before a constitutional and human rights court, and yet the remedies sought are ordinarily to be found only in commercial cases. It is unclear what evidential process Bia Tosha expects the court to follow in awarding it billions of shillings in a
constitutional and human rights court which is only used to declaration of laws and human rights issues.
To ensure judicial time is used optimally and to avoid procedural confusion, the Judge ruled that clarifying the exact pleadings before the court is paramount.
The court has directed all parties to highlight their submissions specifically regarding the status and admissibility of the Further Amended Petition. Once the court issues a ruling to set the record straight on this foundational issue, it will then provide clear directions on the sequencing of the hearing—including whether the main petition and the various pending applications will be heard sequentially or determined together in a single judgment.
The parties have agreed to return to court on 28 May 2026, to highlight their submissions on this procedural matter.
This latest directive is viewed as a necessary administrative step to bring order to one of the oldest pending petitions in the Constitutional Division, ensuring that when the case proceeds to a full hearing, all parties are arguing from a clearly defined and judicially confirmed set of pleadings.
