Justice Mong’are, the Machakos Injunction and the EABL-Asahi Questions Kenya Cannot Ignore

The EABL–Asahi transaction has become more than a corporate acquisition; it is now a test of Kenya’s judicial credibility.

What should have been a commercial matter governed by clear legal process has instead turned into a controversy over forum–shopping, judicial accountability and the growing suspicion that some injunctions are being used less to secure justice than to frustrate deals and solicit for bribes.

The Machakos Order That Raised Eyebrows

At the centre of the latest debate is Justice Josephine Mong’are, whose surprise injunction in Machakos over a matter that was already before a Nairobi court has drawn intense public scrutiny and sparked reactions from leading judicial voices.

For many observers, the issue is not merely procedural. It goes to the heart of how litigants choose forums, how judges exercise or abuse discretion and whether the court system is being manipulated to create delay and uncertainty.

When a matter filed in one jurisdiction suddenly produces an order in another, the public is entitled to ask whether the legal process is being used strategically rather than fairly.

That question matters even more in a transaction as significant as EABL–Asahi, where every delay carries commercial consequences.

Why the Criticism Has Intensified

Justice Mong’are has now become the subject of open criticism from sections of the legal fraternity.

Former Law Society of Kenya President Nelson Havi has been among those publicly calling for her removal, arguing that her conduct has severely undermined confidence in the bench. Other lawyers and commentators have also raised concerns about the propriety of the Machakos injunction and the broader pattern of litigation surrounding the deal.

The intensity of the criticism reflects a deeper anxiety: that Kenya’s courts may be vulnerable to being drawn into commercial battles where procedure becomes a weapon and avenues to extort money from investors through back-channels.

That perception alone is damaging.

Senior Counsel Ahmednasir’s Warning About Bribery Traps

Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi has added another troubling dimension to the debate.

He has publicly suggested that some of these litigations and injunctions can become traps for bribery, where the real objective is not to obtain justice but to create pressure points that allow a deal to move forward only after improper inducements.

That is a grave claim, and coming from a senior lawyer casts doubts on Justice Mong’are and litigants using her court.

This revelation captures a fear that many investors and lawyers quietly share: that endless injunctions and competing court orders can become tools of leverage and bribery in high-stakes commercial disputes.

If that perception takes hold, the damage goes far beyond one transaction and undermines confidence in the courts, in the legal profession and in the investment climate itself.

The Cost of Judicial Uncertainty

When a major transaction is repeatedly interrupted by fresh applications, surprise orders and jurisdictional manoeuvres, the message to the market is clear: finality is elusive.

That is not a message Kenya can afford to send, and the judiciary must therefore do more than decide cases. It must also protect the integrity of the process by ensuring that orders are not used to ambush parties, delay transactions or create opportunities for abuse.

A Moment for Accountability

The controversy surrounding Justice Mong’are should prompt a broader institutional response.

The concerns about forum shopping, procedural abuse or judicial conduct, they should be addressed openly and decisively by the relevant oversight bodies.

The EABL–Asahi dispute has exposed a deeper truth; thatKenya’s investment reputation depends not only on the existence of courts, but on the confidence that those courts are fair, consistent and resistant to manipulation.

That is why this debate matters