By Andrew Kariuki

A Nairobi court will deliver a ruling on April 14, 2026 on how proceedings will continue in a case where construction company JILK has accused British multinational beverages firm Diageo PLC of sexual harassment.

The matter came up before Chief Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo, who indicated that he would first review the case file before issuing further directions.

During the proceedings, the court was informed that East African Breweries Limited (EABL) had not been served with some of the documents from the complainants.

“There was a ruling from the Chief Magistrate on the issue of service on the side of the respondents but we affected the service on April 1, 2026,” said lawyer Kibe Mungai.

The case involves an application by some of the complainants seeking permission to privately prosecute officials linked to the matter.

However, lawyer Cecil Miller, representing the respondents, filed an application dated March 23, 2026 opposing the request for private prosecution.

Miller also raised concerns over the representation of some of the accused persons, arguing that the fourth and fifth accused had not yet secured legal representation despite the matter being criminal in nature.

Lawyer Kibe Mungai opposed Miller’s application.

The dispute stems from a contract signed between 2016 and 2017 between JILK Construction Company Limited and Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL) for the construction of a brewing factory in Kisumu.

According to court filings, the alleged offences are said to have occurred during the execution of the project.

The complainants are seeking to prosecute two Irish nationals, Brendan Daly and Nicholas Quarke, who were employees of Diageo PLC and were in charge of the Kisumu project at the time.

They are accused of allegedly sexually harassing two female employees of JILK during the course of the project.

Court records indicate that the application for private prosecution was filed on March 5, 2026. The following day, the magistrate ruled that the application was not urgent and directed that it be served on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), with the matter scheduled for mention on March 24.

JILK has since challenged that decision, claiming it was influenced by bias, incompetence and a failure to properly consider the application.

In documents copied to the Judicial Service Commission, the company alleges that the magistrate’s directions were intended to shield the respondents and improperly introduce the DPP into the matter.

The company further claims that the court’s handling of the case has portrayed it as the wrongdoer instead of the aggrieved party.

The case is expected to proceed following the court’s ruling on April 14.