Justice Weldon Korir will rule whether farmers can be enjoined in KTDA case seeking to quash a report on tea sector

Nairobi, Kenya: The High Court in Nairobi will tomorrow determine whether 1,000 small scale farmers will be enjoined in a case lodged by Kenya’s tea marketing agency against the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK).

Justice Weldon Korir will give the verdict after hearing the opposing sides yesterday, in which Kenya Tea Development Authority (KTDA) claimed farmers did not have any legal justification to participate in the case seeking to quash a damning report on the sector.

The court will also decide whether to temporarily halt the implementation of the report until the case is heard and determined.

“KTDA is challenging the process that was used to publish the report and not the merit of the said report,’’ said KTDA’s lawyer Anthony Maruti, who objected to the inclusion of the farmers.

“Farmers do not have any cause of action in this case. They do not have a stake in this case.”

Mr Maruti argued that the report was published without the officials of the tea marketing agency being given chance to defend it.

“Section 18 of the CAK Act requires a notice to be published when an inquiry is being conducted. This never happened,” he argued.

Case outcome

However, tea farmers through their lawyer, Peter Wanyama, told the court that seven KTDA directors had been notified of the probe. 

“We have an interest in the outcome of the case. Seven directors in KTDA had been alerted that there was an enquiry that was being done,” the court heard.

Farmers claimed the agency is trying to stifle a case before a Kericho court in which they are seeking to recover Sh93 billion from KTDA allegedly pinched from their earnings over the past 15 years. The report dubbed ‘Benchmarking or Marketing Inquiry for the Tea Sector in Kenya’ had alluded to cartels and price manipulation at the tea auction leading to losses.

But CAK held that the report was only a draft, adding that it would be a waste of judicial time if temporary orders would be issued to stop a report that had not been authenticated and adopted. “The report has not been validated. This is just a draft,’’ Justice Korir heard.