A row has erupted over the appointment of former M-cheza Chief Executive Officer Peter Maina Karimi as the Director General of Gambling Regulatory Authority.

In the case filed before High Court Judge Patricia Nyaundi, the board is accused of failing to consider that Maina was allegedly still an active gambling company player by the time of the appointment.

On the other hand, Maina seeks to have the case struck out, arguing that it is a labour dispute.

He maintains that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case filed by Patrick Mwashigadi. Instead, he says, it should have been filed before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.

The authority, in its press release dated February 26, 2026, and signed by the board’s chair, Joseph Kirui Limo, stated that after successful interviews, they had settled on Maina.

In the press release, GRA defended the appointment saying that Maina previously worked for Société BIC and Nokia International.

However, in the case, Mwashigadi’s lawyer, Abdirahman Mohamed, argued that the board should not have appointed Maina.

“The appointment of the fourth respondent as Director General of the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) vide the announcement dated February 26, 2026, is patently unlawful, ultra vires, null and void ab initio, as the fourth respondent is disqualified under the express provisions of the Gambling Control Act, No. 14 of 2025,” argued Mohamed.

He argued that the Act bars a person who was a director, employee or shareholder of a betting company from appointment to the board if he had not resigned or left the company five years before.

“The fourth respondent has been the Chief Executive Officer of M-cheza - a licensed gambling or sports betting operator in Kenya, continuously since 2016 to date, which is over 10 years, including the preceding five years, as evidenced by media articles, professional profiles, and public records.
He therefore fails the statutory qualification and cannot lawfully make the required declaration under Section 8(1)(f) of no conflicting interests in the gambling sector,” claimed Mohamed.

The lawyer alleged that the board deliberately omitted the name of the company where Maina was working. “This is evidence that the respondents have committed a material non-disclosure by failing to name the exact position and company the 4th respondent was working at immediately before the appointment,” he said, adding that he is allegedly a director of Umsuka Capital Limited, which is a financial services provider.

He stated that the firm had allegedly been closed for non-compliance. Mohamed argued that Umsuka’s closure further made Maina unsuitable to head GRA.

In response, Maina, through his lawyer Moureen Lagat, argued that the prayers sought by Mwashigadi had nothing to do with the constitutional court.

Lagat was of the view that the application to strike out the case should be heard first as it touched on the core of the case.

She further argued that Mwashigadi had not explained how he got international communication from the RBA.

Lagat stated that the petitioner had no authority to purse Maina or the board as he was not an employee of the authority and had no any relationship with it.

“The petitioner has neither demonstrated how his fundamental rights and freedoms under the Constitution have been violated or are threatened nor has he tethered any evidence to prove the alleged violations. Additionally, the petitioner is relying on documents containing internal communication of the Respondents which he illegally and unprocedurally acquired which, as an outsider, he has not disclosed how he acquired the documents. The authenticity and accuracy of the documents relied upon by the Petitioner in both his Petition and Application cannot be ascertained,” replied Lagat.

In his supporting affidavit, Maina stated that Mwashigadi had not indicated how his rights had been violated by his appointment.

He was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to move to the Labour Court to seek an interpretation of his appointment process.

According to him, the case is fatally defective and ought to be struck out.

“The desire to remedy what the petitioner perceives to be violations of the Constitution on the appointment of the fourth respondent by the first respondent does not justify seeking redress from a forum in which the Constitution has not vested the power to issue such a remedy,” said Maina.

The board and the Attorney General have not yet responded.