Kenya High Court Partially Lifts Stay on Gambling Regulations, Licensing to Resume
Kenya High Court Partially Lifts Stay on Gambling Regulations, Licensing to Resume
Court Ruling Partially Lifts Stay on Gambling Regulations
Kenya’s High Court has partially lifted the stay order that froze all gambling regulations last month, allowing most regulatory measures to be enforced once again. However, the controversial increased licensing fees and capital requirements remain suspended for now.
In July, Justice William Musyoka issued a stay order against the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations 2026 following a legal challenge brought by Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance. That order effectively put Kenya’s licensed gambling sector on hold, with the new regulations applying only to authorised entities.
On Friday, Musyoka partially lifted the order after the Kenyan government and the newly established Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) requested that only the most contentious aspects remain suspended. The regulator argued that the full stay order had created a “regulatory vacuum,” allowing unlicensed operators to function without GRA oversight.
What the Ruling Means for the Industry
The ruling means the GRA can now resume its core regulatory functions, including:
- Receiving and processing licence applications
- Conducting due diligence on operators
- Carrying out anti-money laundering oversight
- Enforcing consumer-protection measures
Despite this partial lifting of the stay order, the full substantive judicial review case will proceed to determine whether the suspended provisions will remain blocked. Written submissions are due by 21 September, with a full judgment scheduled for 2 October.
What Remains Suspended: Fees and Capital Requirements
The key provisions that remain suspended are the increased licensing fees and the new gambling capital requirements for licensees. These two measures were the most controversial elements of the new regulatory framework.
Industry Experts Weigh In on Fee Implications
David Sarinke, partner at Kenyan law firm McKay Advocates, told iGB that despite the scrutiny over increased fees, the ruling does mean the licensing process can now resume. However, the court did not specify which licensing fees should apply while the increased fees remain suspended.
“Obviously, the reasonable thing to do is go back to the previous fees it was applying as a way for the court to make a determination on that point,” Sarinke said. “We expect the regulator basically to give some kind of guidance as to their understanding, but obviously I will expect that they will reopen applications for licences, and then they will have to guide us to which fees will now be applicable.”
Steve Kipruto David, founder of KDS Advocates, offered a different perspective. He told iGB the outcome is likely to be less straightforward, arguing that the government is unlikely to simply revert to the previous fee structure. This, he says, is partly due to a desire for stricter compliance and a greater concentration of larger operators.
“I doubt it,” he declared. “I view these fees as, yes, they’re exorbitant, but it’s now a big game, and the big game is for the big guys. So for me, I think it will not be reviewed downward.”
“I think the government is also trying to regulate gambling by imposing these fees. There are, I think, more than 150 licensed firms right now. I don’t think even half or even a quarter of that number will meet the capital requirements.”
What Has Changed? A Look at the Fee Increases
Kenya announced its move toward a new regulatory framework for gambling last year, seeking to overhaul laws dating back to 1966. The existing regulator, the Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB), was replaced with the GRA, and a raft of new regulations were introduced.
Previous vs. New Fee Structure
Under the previous regulations, iGaming operators typically paid a little over Ksh10,000 ($77) for a licence application, followed by annual licence fees of between approximately Ksh400,000 and Ksh1 million.
The new structure represents a dramatic increase:
- Application fee for an online bookmaker licence: Rocketed to Ksh5 million
- Licence fee: Now stands at Ksh50 million
- Licence duration: Now covers a three-year period rather than the previous annual renewals
According to the initial request for a stay order, licensing fees have increased by between 200% and 49,900%.
Additionally, there is a new gambling capital requirement of Ksh100 million for online bookmakers and iGaming operators, marking another significant financial hurdle.
Industry Concerns Over Affordability
The initial legal challenge claimed that “numerous operators” had raised concerns about their ability to meet the higher fees under the new regulations, with some reportedly considering closure. The suit warned this could put thousands of jobs at risk, lead to the withdrawal of investments, and ultimately reduce government tax revenues.
The Public Participation Argument: Key to the Case?
The ongoing legal case argues that the increased capital requirements could be considered unconstitutional, as they were set above the figures proposed in a public consultation. Under Article 10 of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, public participation is recognised as a national value and principle of governance.
However, according to Sarinke, the government presented substantial documentation showing that both public and stakeholder engagement had taken place during the development of the regulations.
Kipruto believes the public participation argument is unlikely to succeed in the substantive case. “That angle, I think it will not succeed,” he said. “I think the strongest point is the unconscionability of the fees.”
A Call for More Time to Comply
With many operators currently lacking the resources to pay the capital requirement, Kipruto feels there should be more leeway given in terms of time to raise the necessary funds.
“They must be given an extended period,” he suggested. “That’s why I was engaging with the legal guys from the GRA, from also the Office of the Attorney General, and it was my view that perhaps they should extend the moratorium.”
“Rather than telling these operators that you need to comply by the end of this year, extend it and give them maybe even two years for them to comply.”