Blow for Uber, Bolt as High Court blocks 18 per cent commission cap

The High Court has blocked enforcement of the 18 per cent commission cap imposed on ride-hailing platforms, handing a major victory to digital taxi operators challenging Government regulation of the sector.

Justice Roselyn Aburili declared key provisions of the National Transport and Safety Authority (Transport Network Companies, Owners, Drivers and Passengers) Regulations, 2022 unconstitutional, including restrictions on platform commissions and mandatory retention and disclosure of passenger and driver data.

However, the judge suspended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months to give the Government time to undertake fresh public participation, conduct a formal regulatory impact assessment and align the regulations with the Constitution and enabling legislation.

During the suspension period, enforcement of the 18 per cent commission ceiling against Bolt Operations OU and other digital transport operators has been barred.

The dispute arose from Regulation 9, which requires transport network agreements to provide for a platform commission not exceeding 18 per cent of total trip earnings. It also prohibits contractual arrangements designed to push the commission above the ceiling.

The Government introduced the cap in 2022 following complaints from drivers who accused ride-hailing companies of imposing excessive charges, with commissions previously reaching between 25 and 30 per cent.

However, Bolt challenged the regulations in court in 2025, arguing that the restrictions were unconstitutional, lacked a proper statutory foundation and interfered with contractual and property rights.

Justice Aburili found that the Government had failed to demonstrate the necessity or proportionality of the commission restrictions through the required regulatory process.

“The absence of a regulatory impact statement assessing the economic consequences of such price control, through a regulation which the Court has already found lacked the necessary constitutional safeguards, compounds the arbitrariness of the measure,” the judge said.

She further held that there was no empirical evidence demonstrating that the commission restrictions were necessary or proportionate, adding that the provisions amounted to “an unconstitutional deprivation of property and contractual autonomy”.

The court also struck at another key pillar of the 2022 regulations—the requirement for digital taxi platforms to retain detailed passenger, driver and trip data for three years and surrender it to NTSA on demand.

The information covered driver and passenger identifiers, pickup and drop-off locations and times, payment methods and fare details.

Justice Aburili described the arrangement under Regulation 17 as creating a “regime of continuous surveillance”, finding that it infringed the constitutional right to privacy under Article 31 and contravened principles contained in the Data Protection Act, 2019.

“Regulation 17 infringes the right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution and contravenes the principles of the Data Protection Act 2019,” she ruled.

The judge said compulsory disclosure of private information without adequate safeguards or a regulatory impact assessment compounded the arbitrariness of the regulations.

The court nevertheless declined to immediately nullify the contested regulations in their entirety, warning that doing so would remove important safety and operational requirements governing the digital taxi industry.

“An immediate nullification and ceasing to operate would destabilize the transport sector,” Justice Aburili said, adding that suspension of the declaration was the appropriate remedy.

The judge directed that the contested provisions will cease to be enforceable after 12 months if the Government fails to comply with the required constitutional and regulatory processes.

The court also examined the division of transport functions between the national and county governments.

It found that counties retain responsibility for local transport services, including taxis and parking, while the national Government is responsible for national transport safety standards and policies with cross-county implications.

Justice Aburili consequently held that NTSA has authority to license digital platforms operating across counties, provided that such licensing does not usurp county powers over individual vehicles, drivers, parking and other local transport functions.

The ruling now puts pressure on the government to revisit the regulatory framework governing Kenya’s rapidly expanding digital taxi industry, while giving platforms such as Uber and Bolt temporary relief from the commission ceiling and contested data-disclosure regime.