Court freezes plan to hike gambling, casino licence fees

File

The High Court sitting in Nairobi has granted betting firms and casinos a major reprieve after freezing new licensing fees. Justice William Musyoka said the main issue raised by the petitioners was the astronomic variance between the old amount and the newly introduced charges.

He said it was important to block the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) from levying the new fees until the issue was resolved.

“Consequently, I shall, as I hereby do, vary the stay order, made on July 20, 2026, to limit it to staying implementation and enforcement of the increment on the fees, as set out in the Second Schedule and the gambling capital, as set out in the Third Schedule to the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026, pending hearing and disposal of the substantive motion,” ruled Justice Musyoka.

This comes as a fresh case was filed to now have the regulations declared unconstitutional.

Lawyer Biketi Wati, in his case filed under a certificate of urgency, argued that the new regulations were sneaked through Parliament.

 He noted that several components, including the new charges, were not part of what had been submitted to the public for review and input.

In the initial case, two lawyers, Thomas Buckley Opal and Ken Brance, sued the GRA, Attorney General and the Prime Cabinet Secretary, arguing that the new regulations would cripple the industry and were allegedly passed without public participation.

Opal and Brance argued that the 2026 regulations were passed amidst confusion on who among the cabinet secretaries is responsible for gambling.

They accused the Kenya Kwanza government of deliberately leaving out the crucial role of managing the industry from the organogram.

They stated that this left gambling firms without anyone to ask questions from. According to the duo, this role initially was assigned to the Public Service, Human Capital Development and Special Programs Cabinet Secretary Geoffrey Ruku.

Nevertheless, they complained that the fees introduced in the new law range from a 200 per cent increase to a 49,900 per cent increase.

According to the two, an online bookmaker application fee was initially Sh10,000. However, the new fee applied is Sh5 million.

For pool and betting license renewal, the players were paying Sh5,000 but are now required to pay Sh2.5 million, the same as the bookmaker application fee, which was previously Sh 10,000.

They further claimed that for an online bookmaker license fee, the amount was increased 249 times, from Sh200,000 to Sh50 million.

“The existing license holders had a legitimate expectation that any transition from the previous licensing regime to the current would be implemented through reasonable and proportionate transitional arrangements,” the two argued.

Financial requirement

Instead, the impugned regulations require compliance with a materially different and significantly more onerous licensing framework, notwithstanding that many operators continue to hold licenses or had arranged their affairs under the previous regime.” Opar and Brance asserted that the government had allegedly ignored Parliament’s recommendation while increasing the fees.

They also lamented that the advertising fee had been increased by six per cent.

“The Act’s Third Schedule requires Sh20 million security for casinos, but the Regulations’ Third Schedule (titled “gambling capital requirement”) requires Sh100 million gambling capital for casinos. The respondents have deliberately and unlawfully imposed a financial requirement that is 500 per cent higher than that which Parliament deemed sufficient,” they warned. The two lawyers argued that the authority was on the verge of ordering closures and deactivation of gambling channels. Justice Musyoka blocked the gambling authority from implementing the new regulations. However, the authority’s Director General Peter Karimi moved back to court, arguing that the court had allegedly crippled its ability to process licenses.

Karimi alleged that the fees and the new rules were a result of consultations with the stakeholders.

He stated that the requirements for gambling firms must have insurance coverage, and for gambling capital was out of caution that they must have the financial capacity necessary to establish and sustain such operations.

“The blanket stay has accordingly impaired the authority’s ability to receive, process and determine applications under the new framework, conduct the prescribed due diligence and inspections, process applications by suppliers and service providers and regulate new market entry,” he replied.

In his further reply, Opar, who said he is a consultant advising licensed gaming operators. He stated that the new regulations had simply knocked out the majority of betting firms as very few would sustain such fees and insurance premiums.

“I am aware that several operators are presently reviewing the commercial viability of continuing their operations and are contemplating closure because they are unable to satisfy the new financial thresholds imposed on them by the regulations,” claimed Opar.

He said GRA had already notified mobile service providers on July 3 that it would require the new regulations to be implemented before issuing them with the payment channels.