High Court Narrows Stay on the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026
Licence Fees and Capital Requirements Remain Suspended
The High Court of Kenya has allowed most of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026 to come into force.
However, two areas remain frozen. These are the revised licensing fees under the Second Schedule and the gambling capital thresholds under the Third Schedule.
The Court has suspended those two components until it hears and determines the substantive judicial review application.
THE HIGH COURT RULING
Justice W. Musyoka delivered the decision on 7 August 2026 in Judicial Review Case No. HCJR/E251/2026.
Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance brought the application. They sued the Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya, and three further respondents.
BACKGROUND TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL REGULATIONS CASE
On 20 July 2026, the Court granted the applicants leave to lodge a substantive judicial review motion.
The applicants seek to have the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026 quashed. They also seek to prohibit their implementation or enforcement.
Justice Musyoka further ordered that the grant of leave would operate as a stay. As a result, the entire body of regulations was held in abeyance.
The Respondents’ Application to Lift or Modify the Stay
The respondents challenged that outcome through an application dated 29 July 2026.
They asked the Court either to lift the stay altogether or to modify it. In particular, they wanted the regulator to continue carrying out its administrative, preparatory, protective and compliance mandates under the Gambling Control Act, 2025.
The functions they wished to preserve included the intake and processing of licence applications. They also included consumer protection and anti-money laundering oversight.
In addition, the respondents sought to continue surveillance of unlicensed and offshore gambling operations. They also wanted to safeguard player funds and personal data and maintain regulatory systems.
THE RESPONDENTS’ CASE
Peter M. Karimi is described in the ruling as Director General of the second respondent.
Karimi deposed that the Gambling Control Act No. 14 of 2025 commenced on 26 August 2025. According to him, the Act created a national structure for regulating, licensing, supervising and enforcing gambling activity.
In his view, subsidiary legislation was essential to give the Act full effect. In particular, the regulations address licence classes, application procedures, financial capacity thresholds, technical standards and renewals.
Public Participation
On process, the respondents asserted that they had undertaken public participation before the regulations took effect.
Karimi’s affidavit refers to a Gazette notice issued in April 2026. It also refers to a later call for national validation of the draft regulations.
In addition, the affidavit refers to public participation forums and engagement with the relevant parliamentary committees.
THE APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE
The applicants opposed the respondents’ application.
They argued that lifting the stay would allow the disputed regulations to operate before the Court resolved their challenge. Consequently, they contended that this could render the challenge academic.
The applicants also relied on sections 121 and 122 of the Gambling Control Act. In their submission, these provisions provide a workable framework for the transitional period leading to the new regulations, including on licensing.
The Transitional Licensing Framework
The respondents conceded that section 122 recognises licences issued under the earlier regime.
However, they argued that neither section 121 nor section 122 provides detailed procedures for fresh applications after existing licences lapse. They also argued that the sections do not provide detailed procedures for the other processes contemplated under the Act.
THE COURT’S REASONING AND ORDERS
Justice Musyoka examined the applicants’ statutory statement. He observed that their real grievance concerned the new licensing fees.
According to the applicants, the new fees represented increases ranging from 200% to 49,900%.
The Judge noted that the applicants were not challenging the regulations as a whole. Instead, they were challenging specific provisions.
Therefore, the Judge reasoned that the stay should apply only to those provisions.
What Remains Suspended
The Court accordingly varied its order of 20 July 2026.
It confined the stay to the implementation and enforcement of:
- the fee increases under the Second Schedule; and
- the gambling capital requirements under the Third Schedule.
The stay will remain in place pending the hearing and disposal of the substantive motion.
What Can Now Take Effect
Importantly, the ruling makes clear that the stay does not affect any other provision of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026.
Therefore, the relevant authorities may implement, enforce, operate and apply the remaining provisions.
NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCEEDINGS
The parties will canvass the substantive application through written submissions.
The Court has directed them to file and exchange their submissions on or before 21 September 2026.
The Court has scheduled judgment for 2 October 2026. It will deliver the judgment through the Court’s virtual case tracking system.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR GAMBLING OPERATORS AND INVESTORS IN KENYA
The 2026 Licensing Regime Is Now Largely Live
Operators should proceed on the basis that most of the 2026 licensing regime is now in effect.
In particular, application procedures, licence categories, technical standards, renewal requirements and compliance obligations under the regulations are enforceable with immediate effect.
Fee and Capital Exposure Is Deferred, Not Extinguished
The Court has suspended the Second and Third Schedule provisions for now.
However, those provisions could be revived in full if the applicants are unsuccessful on 2 October 2026.
Therefore, operators and investors should treat the higher figures as a live contingency when considering budgeting and capital planning. They should not treat them as a dead letter.
Compliance Readiness Should Continue
The suspended provisions do not cover anti-money laundering controls, consumer protection measures, player fund segregation or data protection arrangements.
Therefore, the Gambling Regulatory Authority may continue to enforce these requirements.
Transitional Licences Require Close Attention
The parties disagree on how sections 121 and 122 of the Act interact with the new regulations.
Accordingly, licensees whose existing permits are approaching expiry should assess their position early.
HOW WKA ADVOCATES CAN ASSIST
Our team advises on gambling licensing and renewals, regulatory compliance audits, anti-money laundering frameworks and corporate structuring to meet capital thresholds.
We also advise on engagement with the Gambling Regulatory Authority, judicial review and constitutional litigation.
We are monitoring this matter. We will circulate a further alert once the Court delivers its judgment.
For tailored advice on how the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026 and this High Court ruling affect your operations, please contact your usual WKA Advocates relationship partner.
This alert is a general summary of a court ruling and is provided for information only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your specific circumstances.