Kenyan Court Stops High License Fees Pending Full Hearing and Determination of Case
The High Court of Kenya has allowed the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026 to take effect, except for licensing fee increases contained in the Second Schedule and gambling capital requirements set out in the Third Schedule.
Justice W. Musyoka issued the ruling on August 7 in Judicial Review Case No. HCJR/E251/2026, filed by Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance against the Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya and three other respondents.
The case dates back to July 20, when the court granted Owuor and Brance leave to file a substantive judicial review motion seeking orders to quash the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026 and prohibit their implementation or enforcement. Justice Musyoka also directed that the leave operate as a stay, placing the regulations on hold.
The respondents challenged that position through an application dated July 29. They asked the court to either set aside the stay or vary it to allow the regulator to continue administrative, preparatory, protective and compliance functions under the Gambling Control Act, 2025. These included receiving and processing applications, consumer protection measures, anti-money laundering supervision, monitoring unlicensed or foreign-based gambling, preserving player funds and data and maintaining regulatory systems.
Peter M. Karimi, identified in the ruling as Director General of the second respondent, told the court that the Gambling Control Act No. 14 of 2025 came into operation on August 26, 2025 and established a national framework for the regulation, licensing, supervision and enforcement of gambling activities. He said subsidiary legislation was required to fully operationalise the Act, including provisions covering licensing categories, application procedures, financial capacity requirements, technical standards and renewals.
The respondents also maintained that public participation had taken place before the regulations came into operation. According to Karimi’s affidavit, a Gazette notice was published in April 2026, followed by a notice calling for national validation of the regulations. Public participation forums were held and the relevant parliamentary committees were involved in the process.
The applicants opposed the respondents’ application, arguing that removing the stay would bring the challenged regulations into operation before their substantive case was determined and could render their challenge ineffective. They also relied on sections 121 and 122 of the Gambling Control Act, which they said provided an operational framework during the transition to the new regulations, including provisions dealing with licensing.
Read Also: High Court of Kenya Temporarily Suspends a Number of Gambling Control Regulations 2026
The respondents acknowledged the transitional provisions under section 122 insofar as they recognise licences issued under the previous regime. They argued, however, that sections 121 and 122 did not provide detailed procedures for new applications once existing licences expired or for other processes provided for under the Gambling Control Act.
Justice Musyoka said his review of the applicants’ statutory statement showed that their principal complaint concerned new licensing fees, which they said had increased by between 200% and 49,900%. “The specific circumstances herein are that the ex parte applicants do not have issue with the entirety of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026, but with certain provisions in it. The stay order ought to focus on those,” Justice Musyoka ruled.
The court therefore varied the July 20 order, limiting the stay to the implementation and enforcement of the fee increases in the Second Schedule and the gambling capital requirements in the Third Schedule, pending the hearing and disposal of the substantive motion.
“For avoidance of doubt, all the other provisions of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026, are not affected by the stay order made herein, and are available for implementation, enforcement, operation and application,” the ruling states.
The substantive application will proceed through written submissions, which the parties have been directed to file and exchange by September 21, 2026. Judgment is scheduled for October 2, 2026, via CTS.
