A bottle of brandy that allegedly contained dead insects sparked a six-year legal battle between a Machakos consumer and Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL).

The case raised questions about product safety, manufacturers' responsibility and the evidence consumers need to prove defective products in court.

In the end, however, it was not the alleged contamination that decided the dispute. It was the missing bottle.

The High Court overturned a lower court award of Sh181,600 after finding there was no scientific evidence linking the drink to the man's illness and that the bottle at the centre of the dispute had never been produced in court.

Justice Emmanuel Bitta delivered the judgment on July 30, 2026, virtually from Mombasa, allowing KBL's appeal against an earlier decision by the Kithimani Principal Magistrate's Court.

Bottle 'dead insects'

The dispute began after Michael Gitau said he bought a 750ml bottle of Richot Brandy at Starehe Bar in Kithimani on January 6, 2020.

According to court records, he claimed the drink had a strange taste and contained what looked like dead insects or other foreign objects.

He said he later fell ill and sought treatment at Matuu Level 4 Hospital before suing Kenya Breweries Limited for negligence.

"I purchased for consumption an alcoholic spirit namely Richot 750ml brandy... but in the course of its consumption, it had a funny and unfamiliar taste, and rather it had deposits that seemed to be dead insects or otherwise foreign objects," Mr Gitau told the court in his witness statement.

He claimed the drink caused food poisoning and sought compensation for his suffering together with medical expenses.

In March 2025, Principal Magistrate Paul Matanda Wechuli agreed with him. The court found KBL fully liable and awarded him Sh180,000 in general damages and Sh1,600 in special damages, together with costs and interest.

KBL appealed, arguing that there was no proof the bottle was contaminated because it had never been examined by the Government Chemist, the Kenya Bureau of Standards or any accredited laboratory.

It also maintained that the bottle itself had never been submitted for scientific analysis and insisted its quality assurance systems ensured products leaving its factory were safe for consumers.

Mr Gitau countered that he had tried to have the bottle examined after obtaining court orders. He blamed the failure on the Government Chemist, saying the laboratory lacked the necessary testing reagents.

He urged the High Court to uphold the magistrate's decision, arguing that his medical records and testimony sufficiently proved he became ill after consuming the drink.

When the High Court took a fresh look at the evidence, Justice Bitta accepted that Mr Gitau had consumed Richot Brandy and later sought treatment. But the judge said proving illness alone was not enough.

A bottle of brandy that allegedly contained dead insects sparked a six-year legal battle between a Machakos consumer and Kenya Breweries Limited (KBL).

Photo credit: NMG

The court found there was no independent evidence showing the bottle was contaminated. Neither the bottle nor its contents had been produced during the trial.

There was also no laboratory report linking the alleged foreign matter to Mr Gitau's illness.

"The bottle and its contents being in the peculiar knowledge and custody of the respondent, it was incumbent upon him to prove his allegations on its contents, which he failed to do," Justice Bitta ruled.

The judge also questioned the medical evidence relied upon by the lower court.

Although the clinician who treated Mr Gitau testified that the patient had vomited blood after consuming something, the judge found he never directly attributed the illness to the Richot Brandy he had consumed. Instead, the clinician said only that "what he had taken caused this".

"What he had taken caused this... He recovered, so I didn't do further tests," clinician Duncan Muthoka testified.

Justice Bitta noted that Mr Gitau had consumed several other drinks and food items on the same day.

A receipt produced in court listed Richot Brandy alongside cider, soda, water, Red Bull, Guarana and mango juice.

The judge said this made it impossible to conclude, without scientific evidence, that the brandy alone caused the illness.

Inconsistencies

The court also identified several inconsistencies in the evidence.

Mr Gitau testified that he bought and consumed the drink on January 6, 2020, yet the receipt he relied on was dated January 12, 2020.

He said he reported the matter to police on January 7, but the P3 form from a police doctor indicated it was reported on March 3, 2020.

Treatment records were dated March 9, 2020, creating further uncertainty over the sequence of events.

Justice Bitta said those inconsistencies should have been carefully weighed when assessing whether Mr Gitau had proved his case.

The judge nevertheless rejected one of KBL's arguments. The company had argued that it had been wrongly sued because Richot Brandy was manufactured by one of its subsidiaries.

While the court agreed the issue had been pleaded from the beginning, it found KBL failed to produce evidence identifying the subsidiary or proving it was a separate legal entity responsible for manufacturing the drink.

"Pleadings, however strongly worded, do not constitute evidence," Justice Bitta observed.

That finding, however, did not save Mr Gitau's case.

The judge concluded that without the bottle, scientific testing or other independent proof of contamination, the essential ingredients of negligence had not been established.

"I find that the respondent did not discharge either the legal or the evidential burden of proving the essential elements of negligence to the required threshold," Justice Bitta ruled.

The High Court allowed KBL’s appeal, set aside the magistrate's judgment and dismissed Mr Gitau's case, awarding the brewer the costs of the appeal.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.