Kenya Regulatory Reform

Regulatory Reform Meets Judicial Scrutiny: Lessons from Kenya for African Gaming Markets

Regulatory reform is often associated with the introduction of new laws, institutions and licensing frameworks. In practice, however, reform is rarely complete once new rules are published. Their implementation, industry response and, where necessary, judicial scrutiny all contribute to determining how those reforms ultimately take shape.

Kenya’s gaming sector has now entered the judicial scrutiny phase.

Following the enactment of the Gambling Control Act, 2025 (“the Act”), Kenya introduced a new regulatory framework designed to modernize the sector, replacing the previous regime and establishing the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA).

Subsequently, subsidiary legislations were released in the form of 5 regulations namely The Gambling Control (Conduct Of Gambling Operations) Regulations 2026, The Gambling Control (Foreign-Based Operators) Regulations 2026, The Gambling Control (Advertising) Regulations 2026, The Gambling Control (Gambling Appeals Tribunal) Regulations 2026 and the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations 2026, introducing significant changes to licensing, operations and compliance requirements across the industry.

Less than three weeks later, implementation took an unexpected turn. An application for judicial review was filed by Thomas Buckley Opar Owuor and Ken Brance against the Cabinet Secretary, the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) and the Attorney General, with the Association of Gaming Operators Kenya (AGOK) and Safaricom PLC named as interested parties. On 20 July 2026, the High Court granted a stay suspending the implementation of provisions of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026, pending judicial review

The applicants challenge the legality of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026 (Legal Notice No. 111 of 2026), particularly the Second Schedule prescribing annual operating license fees and imposing 6% of advertising budget as approval levy, and the Third Schedule setting minimum capital requirements for casinos, bookmakers, lotteries, online gaming operators, pool betting schemes, and totalizators. They also contest Regulation 20(4), which reduces the statutory appeal period from 21 days to 14 days, and Regulations 23 and 27, which provide that license fees are non-refundable and non-prorated regardless of cancellation, revocation, surrender, or partial license utilization.

The applicants seek orders quashing these provisions. Importantly, the Court has not ruled on the merits of these claims; it has only suspended implementation of the impugned provisions pending the determination of the judicial review.

While the challenged provisions are now before the Court, the significance of the decision extends beyond the specific regulations in dispute. Regulatory reforms are intended to provide certainty and a clear framework for market participation. When implementation is suspended pending judicial review, attention shifts from compliance to legal certainty. Existing operators reassess implementation plans, prospective entrants may defer market entry, and investors and advisers often await greater clarity before making long-term commitments. Although such litigation does not necessarily impede market development permanently, it can influence the timing of commercial and investment decisions.

More importantly, it underscores a broader reality for developing regulatory markets- the success of reform depends not only on the policy objectives it pursues, but also on the transparency, procedural integrity, and legal robustness of the reform process.

As gaming regulation continues to evolve across Africa, stakeholder engagement, procedural fairness, and regulatory certainty are becoming as important to market confidence as the substantive reforms themselves.

Found this insightful? Stay ahead of industry trends and regulatory updates across African gaming markets. Subscribe to the SLEC Africa Newsletter.