Null and void: Court declares sale of Safaricom illegal, unconstitutional
National
By
Nancy Gitonga
| Sep 15, 2026
The High Court has declared the sale of Safaricom unconstitutional and illegal, terming it null and void.
While ordering the shares to be restored to State ownership, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Francis Gikonyo, Roselyne Aburili and Tabitha Ouya found that the transaction of the government’s 15 per cent divestiture of its Safaricom PLC shares was undertaken in violation of the Constitution and various laws governing public finance, procurement, capital markets and competition.
In another blow to President William Ruto’s Kenya Kwanza regime, the court found that the government had already concluded agreements for the sale of its Safaricom shares before completing the policy and parliamentary approval processes.
The judges found that the government had entered into a share purchase agreement at Sh34 per share and a dividend rights purchase agreement with the proposed buyer, Vodafone Group Plc, on December 3, 2025.
READ MORE
New plan proposes global fund to restore trust in institutions
Oryx exits Tanzania gas business in asset sale to ASAS
Women scientists push for a place in research decisions
Banks surpass Sh200 billion mark in tax contribution to government
UAE commits $1 billion to AI projects in Africa
East African summit targets skills gaps, cross-border employment
Kenya courts foreign contractors to boost affordable housing projects
Nairobi's financial hub status puts capital city on global investors' radar
The court faulted the plan for the Sh204.3 billion proceeds from the Safaricom share sale, finding that the funds were not tied to specific projects.
According to the judges, the policy documents were too broad and did not specify the projects, costs and locations to which the funds would be allocated, while depositing the money in the National Infrastructure Fund did not amount to ring-fencing it for particular projects.
Court found that the Government’s Sh204.3 billion partial divestiture of its Safaricom shares did not comply with Section 87A of the Public Finance Management Act despite approval by the National Assembly.
The bench ruled that parliamentary approval could not cure breaches in the process, including failure to conduct public participation and misrepresentation and concealment of material information.