High Court allows Gambling Regulator to collect contested licence fees

The High Court has allowed the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya (GRA) to continue receiving and processing licence applications and provisionally collect contested licensing fees under the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026, pending determination of a judicial review case challenging the new charges.

The interim decision therefore allows the gambling regulator to keep its licensing machinery running while preserving the applicants’ challenge to the disputed fees. Any amounts ultimately found to have been unlawfully or improperly collected will be subject to refunds under terms to be set by the court.

Justice William Musyoka issued the interim orders after hearing an application by Thomas Buckley Opar Owour and Ken Brace seeking clarification of an earlier ruling delivered on August 7, 2026.

The applicants had asked the court to clarify whether its decision to stay the “increment on the fees” contained in the Second Schedule barred the GRA from collecting any fees at all while receiving, processing and determining licence applications under the Gambling Control Act, 2025.

Justice Musyoka allowed the regulator to receive licence applications and, for purposes of processing them under Section 30 of the Gambling Control Act, provisionally levy and collect the fees prescribed in the Second Schedule.

The orders will remain in force pending the hearing and determination of an application dated August 11, 2026, or until further directions from the court.

The judge, however, directed that the GRA’s undertaking to refund any amounts later found to have been unlawfully, excessively or improperly collected be formally recorded.

“In the meantime, to obviate the order of 7th August 2026 being rendered meaningless and inoperative, and to avoid the gaming or gambling sector remaining without effective governance and oversight, I hereby allow prayers 2 and 6 of the motion, on an interim basis, to subsist during the pendency of the motion dated 11th August 2026, or until further orders,” Justice Musyoka ruled.

The court further ordered that should any portion of the fees collected under the Second Schedule ultimately be found unlawful or improperly charged, affected applicants must be refunded within a period and on terms to be determined by the court.

The ruling follows an earlier decision in which the High Court varied a stay order issued on July 20, limiting it to implementation and enforcement of increased licensing fees under the Second Schedule and gambling capital requirements contained in the Third Schedule of the 2026 regulations.

The court had expressly stated that all other provisions of the regulations remained operational.

“For avoidance of doubt, all the other provisions of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations, 2026, are not affected by the stay order made herein, and are available for implementation, enforcement, operation and application,” the court said in the August 7 ruling.

The applicants told the court that the clarification became necessary after the regulator encountered difficulties operationalising the earlier order.

They argued that Section 30(1)(a) of the Gambling Control Act requires every licence application to be accompanied by the prescribed application fee. With the fee schedule under challenge, they said, uncertainty had emerged over what fees the authority could lawfully charge and collect.

The court heard that approximately 246 licence applications were pending before the GRA.

“There are presently approximately 246 applications for licences pending before the Gambling Regulatory Authority. Those applications cannot presently be fully processed and determined while the fee component of the Second Schedule remains under stay and there is no clear operative mechanism for levying and receiving the prescribed fees,” the applicants submitted.

They argued that the uncertainty had effectively paralysed the licensing process, affecting both existing applicants and prospective operators who were not parties to the judicial review proceedings.

The applicants also warned that reverting to fees under the repealed Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act would create further legal uncertainty because the old law does not provide for the new licence categories and procedures established under the Gambling Control Act, 2025.

“This is a new and concrete implementation consequence which only became apparent upon attempting to operationalise the Court’s ruling of 7th August 2026,” they told the court.

The Ministry of Foreign and Diaspora Affairs, GRA and the Attorney-General opposed any suggestion that the provisional arrangement amounted to reopening the substantive dispute over the legality or reasonableness of the fees.

Instead, they proposed that the charges be collected temporarily, with the money subject to refund should the court ultimately rule that the fees were unlawful or excessive.

The GRA also undertook to maintain separate and auditable records of all fees collected during the pendency of the case and comply with any accounting or ring-fencing measures ordered by the court.

The state and the regulator argued that the arrangement would protect the applicants’ right to challenge the fees while ensuring continuity of licensing, market entry, compliance monitoring and regulatory oversight.

“Unless the matter is heard urgently, Gambling Regulatory Authority will remain unable to process the pending licence applications under the framework which this Honourable Court expressly left otherwise operational, thereby defeating the practical effect of the ruling of 7th August 2026,” they submitted.

The substantive judicial review case has been scheduled for expedited hearing.

Parties are required to exchange written submissions by September 21, 2026, with judgment expected on October 2, 2026.