MultiChoice Cleared to Take Sh895m Office Dispute to Supreme Court

By Benadeta Mwaura - Reporter

Kenya, January 12, 2026 - Pay-television firm MultiChoice Kenya Limited has received approval from the Court of Appeal to pursue a Supreme Court challenge in a high-profile dispute stemming from a Sh895 million collapsed office block project in Nairobi, marking a significant escalation in what has become a complex legal fight involving criminal and civil elements.

The Court of Appeal ruled that MultiChoice had provided reasonable explanation for filing its application late, granting it permission to seek certification to take the matter to the Supreme Court. MultiChoice must now complete its formal application within the next 30 days.

The dispute traces back to a commercial construction project along Oloitoktok Road in Kileleshwa, Nairobi, commissioned by MultiChoice and later abandoned amid concerns over structural integrity, including reports of cracks and sagging floors that raised safety concerns.

The building was ultimately condemned. Following the collapse, the contractor involved in the project levelled allegations of professional negligence and falsified reports, triggering not only arbitration and civil court claims, but also a police investigation that led to criminal charges against some architects and engineers connected to the project.

MultiChoice has argued that the criminal proceedings were being used to exert pressure in what was effectively a commercial dispute, which it contends should be resolved within civil litigation and arbitration frameworks rather than parallel criminal action.

In 2022, architects and engineers sued the investigation, claiming that the prosecutions amounted to an abuse of process designed to influence civil litigation outcomes. The High Court dismissed this petition and allowed the criminal cases to proceed. MultiChoice subsequently appealed, but in January 2025 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, affirming that civil and criminal proceedings can run concurrently under Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, unless there is clear evidence that prosecutorial powers are being misused.

The appellate court ruled that the company did not show proof of abuse of process or ulterior motives sufficient to halt criminal charges, setting the stage for MultiChoice’s pursuit of clarification from Kenya’s highest court on the legal interplay between parallel civil and criminal actions.

To move the matter to the Supreme Court, MultiChoice had missed the 30-day deadline for filing a certification application required under appellate rules. The Court of Appeal accepted the firm’s explanation that the delay resulted from challenges securing timely instructions from its shareholder, MultiChoice Africa Holdings, which was temporarily abroad, as well as exceptional personal circumstances affecting one of its lead lawyers.

More from Kenya

Somalia, South Korea Ministers Hold Talks on Maritime Cooperation

Dubai Updates Crypto Regulations to Strengthen Investor Protection

The appeal court judge described these reasons as “plausible and reasonable,” allowing MultiChoice to file the certification application within 30 days of the ruling, a key procedural step if the Supreme Court is to ultimately hear the substantive legal issues.

MultiChoice’s bid to escalate the matter centres on arguments that extend beyond a single corporate dispute, potentially raising issues of general public importance. Among the themes likely to be examined are the scope of prosecutorial power, the correct interpretation and application of Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether concurrent civil and criminal proceedings can unduly prejudice one party’s rights or be misapplied in commercial contexts.

Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could clarify how parallel legal processes are managed in Kenya, particularly where commercial disputes have criminal aspects, an intersection that has vexed lawyers and prosecutors alike. If allowed to proceed, the Supreme Court decision could serve as key precedent for future corporate litigation and prosecution practices.

The case unfolds amid wider scrutiny of Kenya’s construction sector and related civil litigation. In recent years, concerns about building defects, regulatory enforcement and professional accountability have been prominent in the public debate. The unresolved MultiChoice office block dispute is emblematic of broader challenges in ensuring quality construction and clear legal recourse when projects fail.

For MultiChoice, the legal battle has implications for risk management and corporate governance, especially given its profile as a major media and broadcasting firm with investments across the region. The outcome could influence how large corporates approach disputes involving construction, professional reports and enforcement actions by state agencies.

With the Court of Appeal’s nod secured, MultiChoice must now seek formal certification that the legal questions at hand qualify for Supreme Court consideration. If granted, the apex court will hear arguments on the merits, a process that could take months, if not longer, given schedules and procedural requirements.

Until then, the dispute remains a vivid example of how commercial and criminal cases can overlap in Kenya’s legal system, and how courts increasingly grapple with balancing prosecutorial discretion, corporate rights and public interest.