The High Court has allowed the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya (GRAK) to implement the contested Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026, including the collection of licensing fees, on a temporary basis pending the determination of a case challenging the rules.
Under the new fee structure, an online bookmaker license will cost Ksh 50 million, representing a significant increase from the previous Ksh 200,000 fee. The cost of a casino license has also risen to Ksh 120 million, up from Ksh 7 million.
The court also varied an earlier order dated August 7, 2026, which had suspended the implementation and enforcement of the new licensing fees imposed on bookmakers, casinos, and other gaming operators. The ruling followed an application by GRAK, which argued that suspending the fee provisions had effectively stopped the processing of new license applications.
GRAK told the court that while other parts of the regulations could continue to operate, licensing could not proceed without payment of the prescribed fees set out in the regulations. The regulator further stated that 246 license applications were pending and could not be processed because the fee component had been suspended.
The court accepted that, in practice, the fees could not be separated from licensing. The judge observed that the issuance of licenses is conditional upon payment of the charges, and that the fees are set out in schedules to the regulations rather than in the Gaming Control Act, 2025.
As a result, the court found that there was no alternative legal framework under which licensing fees could be charged after the repeal of the Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act. The judge also pointed to the public interest consideration, saying it would be improper to leave the industry unregulated while the main dispute remains before the court.
The court further considered an undertaking by GRAK that any fees collected would be refunded if the court ultimately finds that the regulations, or the fees, are unlawful. On that basis, the judge ruled that there was merit in the regulator’s application dated August 11, 2026. The court confirmed and allowed orders made ex parte on August 13, 2026, and granted additional prayers sought in the application.
The court directed that the costs of the application would abide the outcome of the main case, and noted that the matter will be mentioned on September 21. The challenge was filed by Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance against the Prime Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, Musalia Mudavadi, and GRAK.
The petitioners are contesting the legality of the regulations, particularly the sharp increase in licensing fees applied to bookmakers, lotteries, casinos, bingo operators, totalizators, and pool betting firms. They have also questioned the Cabinet Secretary’s authority to make the regulations.
The government defended the regulations, arguing that they are necessary to operationalize the Gaming Control Act No. 14 of 2025, which came into force in August 2025 and established a new framework for regulating, licensing, and supervising gambling activities.
The government further stated that the regulations provide technical and administrative details needed for implementation, including licence categories, application procedures, financial capacity requirements, technical standards, and renewal processes. The dispute began in July, when the court suspended the implementation and enforcement of the regulations.
The Attorney General later sought review of that suspension. The court then allowed most provisions to remain in force, while suspending the increased fees under the Second Schedule, as well as the capital requirements under the Third Schedule. GRAK later returned to court arguing that the suspension had caused “operational paralysis,” because licensing applications could not be processed without payment of fees.
The petitioners opposed the application. They argued that the increased fees are the core issue in the case, and that permitting their collection would undermine the purpose of the stay order. They warned that some operators may struggle to raise the new fees, potentially forcing them to abandon licence applications, reduce operations, or exit the market.
Others, they argued, could be pushed into heavy borrowing, which could lead to job losses and lower investment in the sector. They also maintained that even if fees are later refunded, this would not adequately compensate businesses for resulting losses or restore the status quo.
They further disputed GRAK’s claim that licensing had ground to a halt, stating that GRAK continued receiving applications and charging fees after the Gaming Control Act took effect in August 2025 and before the regulations became effective on June 29, 2026. In its decision, the High Court found that both sides effectively acknowledged a major legal gap.
While the Gaming Control Act contains transitional provisions relating to gambling taxes, it does not provide a transitional framework for licensing. The judge noted that without the contested regulations, neither the new law nor the repealed Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act offered a workable system for processing and issuing licenses.
