The Kenya High Court has granted betting firms and casino a major reprieve after freezing the implementation of new license fee. Justice William Musyoka said the petitioners central concern was the “astronomic variance” between the previous charges and the newly introduced fees.

He said it was necessary to stop the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) from levying the new fees until the matter is heard and resolved. Justice Musyoka therefore varied the stay order that had been issued on July 20, 2026, limiting it to the suspension of the implementation and enforcement of the fee increments, as set out in the Second Schedule and the gambling capital requirements in the Third Schedule to the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026.

The court action remains pending the hearing and disposal of the substantive motion. The decision follows a fresh case filed seeking to have the regulations declared unconstitutional.

Lawyer Biketi Wati, who brought the urgent application, argued that the regulations were “sneaked through Parliament.” He said several components, including the new charges, were not included in what had been presented to the public for review and input.

In the earlier case, lawyers Thomas Buckley Opal and Ken Brance had sued the GRA, the Attorney General, and the Prime Cabinet Secretary, contending that the regulations would cripple the industry and were passed without public participation.

Opal and Brance also argued that the 2026 regulations were introduced amid confusion over which cabinet secretary is responsible for overseeing gambling.

They accused the Kenya Kwanza government of leaving out the crucial management role from the organogram, saying this responsibility previously belonged to Geoffrey Ruku, the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service, Human Capital Development and Special Programs.

As a result, the duo claimed gambling firms were left without a proper point of accountability for questions on the changes. They further challenged the scale of the fee increases, which they said range from a 200% rise to a 49,900% rise. They gave examples including an online bookmaker application fee that they said was originally Sh10,000 but is now Sh5 million.

They also said pool and betting license renewal was previously Sh5,000 but was raised to Sh2.5 million, matching the bookmaker application fee that they said had been Sh10,000 before. They added that, for an online bookmaker license fee, the amount was increased from Sh200,000 to Sh50 million, describing it as a 249-fold rise.

The lawyers said existing license holders had a legitimate expectation that any move from the old licensing regime to the new one would be handled through reasonable and proportionate transitional arrangements.

Instead, they argued that the regulations demanded compliance with a materially different and substantially more onerous framework even though many operators still held licenses or had arranged their operations under the previous regime.

They also claimed the government ignored Parliament’s recommendations while increasing the fees and noted that the advertising fee had been increased by six percent. They pointed out that the Act’s Third Schedule requires casinos to have Sh20 million in security, while the Regulations Third Schedule requires Sh100 million. They warned that this amounted to a 500% increase above what Parliament had deemed sufficient.

According to Opal and Brance, the authority was already moving toward ordering closures and deactivating gambling channels due to the new requirements. Justice Musyoka had blocked GRA from implementing the new regulations, but GRA’s Director General, Peter Karimi, returned to court arguing that the court order had allegedly crippled the authority’s ability to process licenses.

Karimi told the court that the fees and new rules followed consultations with stakeholders. He stated that gambling firms must meet insurance requirements, and that the gambling capital requirement was imposed out of caution to ensure companies had the financial capacity to establish and sustain operations.

He argued that the blanket stay impaired the GRA’s ability to receive, process, and determine applications under the new framework, conduct due diligence and inspections, process applications by suppliers and service providers, and regulate new market entry.

In a further response, Opal argued that the new regulations would effectively wipe out many betting firms because few could sustain the increased fees and insurance premiums.

He said some operators were reviewing whether it was commercially viable to continue operating and were considering closure due to inability to meet the new financial thresholds set out in the regulations. He added that the GRA had notified mobile service providers on July 3 that it would require the regulations to be implemented before activating the payment channels.