Kenya High Court Extends Interim Measures in Gambling Regulatory Dispute
Kenya’s High Court has maintained interim measures affecting the country’s gambling sector after a fresh application asked the court to intervene in a dispute involving the Prime Cabinet Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs and the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya.
Justice W. Musyoka issued the directions on 13 August 2026 at the Milimani High Court in Nairobi in proceedings brought by Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance against the three respondents and three others. The judge considered two certificates of urgency, two applications brought through a chambers summons and a motion, together with the affidavits and supporting documents filed with them on 11 August.
Given the urgency of the matter, Justice Musyoka certified the motion for hearing during the High Court recess and ordered that the applications be served without delay. The respondents have seven days from service to file and serve their responses, with the court set to deliver its ruling on the motion on 21 August 2026 through the Judiciary’s Case Tracking System.
The latest directions follow the court’s 7 August ruling, which allowed the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026 to take effect but kept the increased licensing fees under the Second Schedule and gambling capital requirements under the Third Schedule on hold pending the case.
On 13 August, Justice Musyoka allowed prayers 2 and 6 of the 11 August motion to remain in force on an interim basis. He said this was necessary to prevent the 7 August order from being rendered meaningless or inoperative and to ensure that the gaming and gambling sector does not remain without effective governance and oversight.
Read Also: Kenyan Court Stops High Licensing Fees Pending Full Hearing and Determination of Case
“In the meantime, to obviate the order of 7th August 2026 being rendered meaningless and inoperative, and to avoid the gaming or gambling sector remaining without effective governance and oversight, I hereby allow prayers 2 and 6 of the motion, on an interim basis, to subsist during the pendency of the motion dated 11th August 2026, or until further orders,” said Justice Musyoka.
The court also addressed money collected under the Second Schedule in connection with the applications covered by prayer 2. The second respondent has undertaken to refund any amount, or part of an amount, that the court ultimately finds was unlawfully, excessively or otherwise improperly collected. The court will determine the period and terms of any refund.
“The effect of the undertaking by the 2nd respondent, the subject of order 4 above, shall be that any amount received or collected by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the Second Schedule, in the course of processing the applications the subject of prayer 2 of the motion herein and order 4 above, which, or a portion which, shall ultimately be found by the court to have been unlawfully, excessively or otherwise improperly collected, shall be refunded to the affected applicant, within such period and on such terms as the court shall direct,” the directions read.
