Kenya’s Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) faces a setback in its first month of operation after the High Court suspended the licensing regulations meant to underpin its authority.
Justice W. Musyoka issued the ruling, pausing enforcement of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations 2026 until the court determines a judicial review challenging their legality.
The GRA took over from the former Betting Control and Licensing Board under the Gambling Control Act 2025, and began operating under the new regulations on July 3, 2026, just days after Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi signed them on June 29, and the government published them on June 30.
Now, less than a month into its mandate, the authority’s licensing framework sits in limbo while the court reviews the case.
Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance filed the legal challenge against the regulations. The case names Mudavadi, the GRA and the Attorney General as respondents, and the Association of Gaming Operators Kenya (AGOK) and Safaricom PLC have joined as interested parties.
The applicants argue the regulations are unlawful and should not be enforced until the court rules on their validity.
At the core of the challenge is a sharp rise in licensing fees under the GRA’s new framework. According to the court application, several license fees increased between 200% and nearly 50,000%.
Land-based bookmaker license renewal fees rose from KES 5,000 ($38.60) to KES 2.5 million ($19,298). Online bookmakers and casino operators now must pay KES 50 million ($385,950) for licenses issued through the GRA.
The regulations also add a 6% approval fee on gambling advertising budgets, a cost the applicants say places a significant financial burden on licensed operators and could affect businesses across the sector.
Beyond fees, the court filing disputes the process the GRA used to introduce the regulations, adding a second front to the challenge facing the young authority.
The applicants argue the government did not conduct adequate public participation before finalising the rules, failing to consult relevant stakeholders properly. The parties also claim the accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement did not clearly show how public feedback was collected or considered.
Furthermore, the filing challenges Mudavadi’s legal authority to sign the regulations, arguing that no constitutional or statutory provision grants him that power. The court will be tasked with examining whether the regulations were issued under the correct legal authority as part of the proceedings.
Applicants have been directed to file their judicial review motion within 14 days, with the matter set to return to court on 21 September 2026 for further directions.