Ride-hailing firm Bolt has been ordered to reinstate Toyota Sienta vehicles in its XL category after the High Court found that the company violated drivers’ rights by removing the cars without a hearing or written reasons.
In a judgment, the court ruled that Bolt’s decision to delist the model from the higher-paying category was discriminatory and violated the drivers’ right to fair administrative action as required by the Kenyan law.
The court also prohibited Bolt from removing Toyota Sienta vehicles from the XL category or taking similar action against other drivers using the model. It awarded the petitioners costs of the case.
The case sets a precedent on how to handle platform workers or gig apps, prohibiting arbitrary use of artificial intelligence or chatbots to decide issues affecting workers without hearing them or consulting them.
Justice Roselyne Aburili found that Bolt removed the six-seater vehicles without a hearing or written reason and treated the Sienta differently from comparable car models.
‘The Bolt Operations OÜ and Bolt Support KE Limited untagged the drivers from the Bolt application without giving them a hearing or written reason for their action thereafter which was in total disregard of the constitutional principles in article 47,’ said the judge, delivering the judgment on behalf of Justice Chacha Mwita who was promoted to the Court of Appeal.
The dispute arose on February 2025, when Bolt removed Toyota Sienta vehicles from the XL category, where some drivers had operated since 2017.
The XL category is for vehicles that carry at least seven passengers and generally pays more than other categories. Drivers challenged the decision, arguing that they had invested in the vehicles and, in some cases, taken loans based on their ability to earn higher fares through the category.
They said reclassification exposed them to lower earnings without prior notice or an explanation. Drivers claimed XL trips made 50 to 100 percent more revenue than basic Bolt and Bolt Economy trips. Some had vehicle loans tied to expected XL earnings.
They also argued that other vehicle models with similar features, including the Honda Freed, Toyota Wish, Nissan Lafesta and Toyota Isis, were not removed from the XL category with them.
The drivers sent Bolt Support a demand letter on February 10, 2025, but received no response, according to the judgment.
Bolt defended the decision, arguing that the Toyota Sienta did not meet the XL category’s requirements because of its passenger space and luggage capacity. The company maintained that the category was intended for vehicles with six passenger seats, excluding the driver, while the Sienta was a five-seater.
It also argued that its relationship with the drivers was contractual and that vehicle categorisation was a business decision governed by its terms and conditions.
The drivers also sought broader safeguards from court, including an effective complaints and appeals mechanism, clearer communication channels with Bolt, and protection against retaliation for challenging decisions affecting their livelihoods.
They asked the court to compel the company to provide accurate information, explain decisions affecting drivers and allow them to raise grievances.
They also wanted Bolt to submit, within 90 days, a detailed proposal outlining measures to prevent future violations of drivers’ rights, with affected drivers allowed to comment on the proposals.
In response, Bolt argued that the dispute concerned a commercial contract, not constitutional rights.
They said a compliance check found the Sienta unsuitable for XL because of space and luggage limits, arguing the category required six passenger seats while the Sienta was a five-seater.
The court, however, found that the company had not shown its decision was lawful, reasonable or procedurally fair.
‘There is no doubt that the respondents’ action to remove the petitioners from Bolt XL and therefore the Bolt application was an administrative decision which had to be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair,’ the court said.
‘The respondents untagged the petitioners from the Bolt application without giving them a hearing or written reason for their action thereafter which was in total disregard of the constitutional principles in article 47.’
The court also found that Bolt had targeted the Toyota Sienta model despite the presence of other vehicles with similar features in the category. It said the company had not contested the drivers’ claim that only the Sienta was affected.
However, the court declined to award the drivers the Sh1 million each they had sought in compensation, as well as additional damages for lost earnings.