Latest News
Kenya Breweries Wins Appeal in Richot Brandy Poisoning Case
A six-year legal fight over an allegedly contaminated bottle of Richot Brandy ended in dramatic fashion after the High Court threw out a consumer’s compensation award, ruling that suspicion alone could not prove negligence against Kenya Breweries Limited.
In a judgment delivered on July 30, 2026, Justice Emmanuel Bitta allowed the brewer’s appeal, overturned a lower court’s decision awarding Michael Gitau KSh181,600, and dismissed his entire suit after finding there was no scientific or independent evidence linking the drink to his illness.
The ruling overturns a March 2025 decision by Kithimani Principal Magistrate Paul Matanda Wechuli, who had found Kenya Breweries fully liable after Gitau claimed he suffered food poisoning from drinking Richot Brandy containing what appeared to be dead insects and other foreign matter.
The dispute dates back to January 6, 2020, when Gitau said he bought a 750-millilitre bottle of Richot Brandy at Starehe Bar in Kithimani.
According to his testimony, the drink tasted unusual and contained strange deposits resembling dead insects.
He later became ill, sought treatment at Matuu Level 4 Hospital, and eventually sued Kenya Breweries for negligence, arguing the company had breached its duty of care by placing an unsafe product on the market.
The trial court agreed and awarded him KSh180,000 in general damages, KSh1,600 in special damages, plus costs and interest.
Kenya Breweries, however, challenged the entire judgement.
The brewer insisted the claim rested on assumption rather than proof.
Its lawyers argued that the allegedly contaminated bottle was never submitted for scientific examination, never analysed by the Government Chemist and, crucially, was never produced before the court as evidence.
They also maintained that no accredited laboratory established contamination and no medical evidence conclusively connected Richot Brandy to Gitau’s illness.
Evidence Gap
Justice Bitta agreed that the appeal ultimately turned on evidence.
Citing settled principles governing negligence, the judge observed that a claimant must establish four essential elements: a duty of care, breach of that duty, resulting damage and proof that the breach caused the injury complained of.
While manufacturers unquestionably owe consumers a duty of care, the court stressed that liability cannot arise simply because someone becomes ill after consuming a product.
“The burden of proving those elements rested upon the Respondent,” Justice Bitta held while noting that the legal and evidential burden remained with Gitau throughout the proceedings.
The judge then identified what proved to be the case’s biggest weakness.
Neither the bottle of Richot Brandy nor its contents were ever produced before the trial court.
Without the bottle itself, the court found there was no objective way of verifying whether it actually contained insects or any foreign substances as alleged.
Equally significant, no laboratory or chemical analysis was undertaken to establish contamination.
“Neither the impugned bottle nor its contents were produced before the trial court,” the judge observed while noting that no scientific examination ever confirmed the alleged defect.
That omission proved fatal to Gitau’s claim.
Medical Doubts
The High Court also found serious shortcomings in the medical evidence.
Gitau relied heavily on testimony from clinician Duncan Muthoka, who treated him after the incident.
Although the clinician confirmed the patient vomited blood and later recovered, Justice Bitta found that nowhere in his testimony did he directly attribute the illness to Richot Brandy.
Instead, the clinician merely stated that whatever Gitau had consumed caused the illness.
No laboratory investigations followed because the patient recovered quickly, while no treatment notes establishing a definitive diagnosis were produced in court.
The judge said that distinction mattered enormously.
Without expert evidence specifically connecting the illness to Richot Brandy, the respondent’s case rested largely on his own assertions.
The documentary evidence created further problems.
Gitau testified that the incident occurred on January 6, 2020, yet the purchase receipt produced during trial bore the date January 12, 2020.
Hospital records and the P3 form carried dates in March 2020, while police reporting dates also differed from his oral testimony.
Justice Bitta found those inconsistencies significantly weakened the credibility of the claim.
The purchase receipt also listed several other beverages, including cider, soda, White Cap beer, Red Bull, Guarana, water and mango juice.
Meanwhile, the clinician testified that Gitau vomited food material alongside black matter.
Together, the judge said, those facts introduced alternative possible causes of illness that were never eliminated through scientific evidence.
“The Respondent had a legal and evidential burden to demonstrate how the contents of the Richot Brandy directly caused him injury,” Justice Bitta stated.
Consequently, he ruled that the evidential burden never shifted to Kenya Breweries because Gitau failed to establish even a prima facie case.
Final Blow
Kenya Breweries also argued it had been wrongly sued because Richot Brandy was allegedly manufactured by another company within its corporate group.
Justice Bitta accepted that the magistrate had mistakenly concluded the issue arose only during submissions.
However, he found the brewer still failed to prove the allegation because it never identified the alleged subsidiary or produced evidence showing it manufactured Richot Brandy.
“Pleadings, however strongly worded, do not constitute evidence,” the judge observed.
Ultimately, that issue did not determine the appeal.
Instead, the High Court concluded that negligence itself had never been proved.
The alleged contamination remained unsupported by independent evidence, scientific testing, or persuasive expert testimony.
Justice Bitta, therefore, allowed Kenya Breweries’ appeal, set aside the magistrate’s judgment, dismissed Gitau’s suit, and awarded the brewer the costs of the appeal.
The judgement reinforces a fundamental principle of product liability litigation: manufacturers owe consumers a duty of care, but courts will not infer negligence without credible proof.
While an allegation may seem compelling, liability cannot be based on mere suspicion when objective evidence is available but has not been presented.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.