The High Court of Kenya has lifted part of a stay order that had previously suspended all gambling regulations, allowing most of these regulations to be enforced once again. However, the increased licensing fees and capital requirements remain on hold.
In July, Justice William Musyoka issued a stay order against the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations 2026 in response to a legal challenge by Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance. This order effectively froze operations in Kenya's licensed gambling sector, restricting the new regulations' applicability to only authorized entities.
On Friday, after the Kenyan government and the new Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) sought clarification on the limitations, Musyoka partially lifted the stay order. The GRA argued that the previous full order had created a “regulatory vacuum,” enabling unlicensed operators to work without oversight.
This recent ruling allows the GRA to resume duties such as processing license applications, conducting operator due diligence, and overseeing anti-money laundering measures, as well as consumer protection activities. Despite this progress, the full judicial review on the suspended provisions will continue, with written submissions due by September 21 and a final judgment set for October 2.
The suspended elements include the higher licensing fees and capital requirements for licensees. David Sarinke, a partner at McKay Advocates, noted that while the increased fees remain under scrutiny, the ruling permits the licensing process to move forward. He remarked that the court did not specify which fees would still apply, leading him to believe that the GRA will revert to the previous fee structure prior to the regulatory changes.
“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 stated. “We expect the regulator to provide some guidance on this.”
Contrarily, Steve Kipruto David, founder of KDS Advocates, argued that reverting to the previous fee structure is not likely, given the government's intent to promote stricter compliance and accommodate larger operators. He commented, "I doubt it. 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, I think it will not be reviewed downward."
Kenya made strides towards a new gambling regulation framework last year, overhauling laws from 1966. The GRA replaced the previous Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB), and new regulations were introduced, which included significant increases in licensing fees.
Under prior regulations, iGaming operators paid just over Ksh10,000 ($77) for a license application and between Ksh400,000 and Ksh1 million in annual fees. The application fee for an online bookmaker license, however, skyrocketed to Ksh5 million, with an annual license fee of Ksh50 million, now covering a three-year period rather than renewed yearly. Initial requests for the stay order revealed that licensing fees had surged between 200% and 49,900%. A new capital requirement of Ksh100 million also applies for online bookmakers and iGaming operators, which has raised concerns among numerous operators about their ability to comply with these higher costs.
Operators have expressed worries that these changes may lead to closures, risking thousands of jobs and reducing government tax revenues. The ongoing legal challenge claims that the new capital requirements could be unconstitutional, as they exceed the figures proposed during public consultations. Article 10 of Kenya's 2010 Constitution emphasizes public participation as a key governance principle.
Despite the government's assertion of adequate public engagement during the regulation's development, Kipruto maintains that this argument may not hold weight in the substantive case. He believes that the most compelling issue lies in the fairness of the fees. With many operators struggling to meet the new capital requirements, he suggests granting additional time for compliance. “They must be given an extended period,” he stated, proposing that a two-year grace period be considered instead of the current requirement for immediate compliance by the year's end.
