High Court clears way for publication of arbitration award in KBL brewery dispute

The High Court has allowed the publication of an arbitration award in a long-running commercial dispute between Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL) and Jilk Construction Company Ltd over the construction of KBL’s brewery in Kisumu.

In a ruling, Justice Francis Gikonyo lifted court orders that had stopped the award from being published since December 2024, saying the continued delay would undermine arbitration as an alternative way of resolving disputes.

The temporary orders had prevented the publication and release of the arbitration award even though the arbitration process had been completed in 2024.

KBL had argued that the arbitration process was affected by alleged constitutional violations, misconduct and corruption. However, Jilk Construction denied the allegations.

The judge ruled that KBL was still free to pursue its constitutional claims in court, but those claims should not prevent the arbitration award from being released.

“Holding or staying the publishing of an award, in the circumstances of this case, may not be an act of promoting arbitration and party autonomy,” Justice Gikonyo said.

“The publishing of the arbitral award does not compromise or take away their right for a constitutional remedy sought herein.”

The court noted that the Constitution encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution methods such as arbitration and requires courts to avoid unnecessary interference unless the law provides otherwise.

Justice Gikonyo also observed that the dispute had remained unresolved for more than a year because of the numerous applications filed by KBL, Jilk Construction and other interested parties.

In the same ruling, the court dismissed KBL’s application seeking to have Jilk Construction cited for contempt of court. The judge said the application had been overtaken by events after a disputed supplementary affidavit was withdrawn.

The court also ruled that letters sent by Jilk to regulators and investigative agencies did not amount to an improper duplication of legal proceedings.

In addition, the judge rejected an application by interested parties seeking to stop parallel criminal investigations. The court held that civil and criminal proceedings can continue at the same time unless there is evidence of abuse of the legal process or violation of constitutional rights.