Thirty-seven Uber motorcycle riders have secured an initial court victory in their battle with the ride-hailing company over account deactivations without adequately informing them and cutting off their earnings.
The High Court in Nairobi rejected Uber Kenya’s bid to exit the case, ruling that its role in the disputed account deactivations must be examined at a full hearing.
The suit echoes developments in Europe where Uber has been fined billions of shillings for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without adequately informing them.
Thirty-seven Uber motorcycle riders have secured an initial court victory in their battle with the ride-hailing company over account deactivations without adequately informing them and cutting off their earnings.
The High Court in Nairobi rejected Uber Kenya’s bid to exit the case, ruling that its role in the disputed account deactivations must be examined at a full hearing.
The suit echoes developments in Europe where Uber has been fined billions of shillings for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without adequately informing them.
Related
Transport
PRIME
Uber bullish on Kenya after pulling out of Uganda, Tanzania
Sep 09 – 4 min read
Companies
PRIME
Standoff as Uber, Bolt fares to rise sharply on new rule
Jul 07 – 5 min read
Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation rules ?ban decisions made solely by computer algorithms when they have a significant impact on people’s lives, saying such decisions require meaningful human review and a way to challenge a decision.
‘Uber Kenya has not demonstrated, with the degree of clarity required at this stage, that its participation is wholly unnecessary or that the Petitioners’ allegations against it are so plainly unsustainable as to warrant its removal without a substantive hearing,’ Justice David Mburu ruled.
The riders sued, claiming they were locked out of the platform without notice, reasons or access to evidence behind the decisions.
They say the suspensions denied them a livelihood and the ability to make loan payments for electric motorcycles financed through Greenwheels Electric Mobility Solutions Limited.
The riders say they faced financial hardship in the wake of the suspensions and the risk of auction.
They said Greenwheels Electric Mobility Solutions Limited repossessed motorcycles following the suspension of the affected riders’ accounts.
Filed in March 2026, the petition invokes constitutional protections for fair administrative action, access to information and consumer rights.
The riders claimed that repeated requests for information, including a formal demand dated December 22, 2025, went unanswered, leaving them without reasons for their deactivation or details of the alleged misconduct and evidence relied upon in terminating their accounts.
Uber Kenya asked the court to strike it out from the suit, saying the digital platform is owned and operated by Uber B.V., a separate company incorporated in the Netherlands.
It said its Kenyan role was limited to promotion, helping users register, and providing general support. It denied managing accounts, investigating rider conduct or deciding suspensions, and said it did not hold the information sought.
Disputing that it is a subsidiary of Uber B.V., the company explained that its shareholders are Uber International Holdings B.V. and Uber International B.V., which are separate legal entities.
It maintained that common shareholding does not justify lifting the corporate veil and that the riders have neither sought such relief nor demonstrated fraud, impropriety, sham or misuse of the corporate structure sufficient to warrant disregarding its separate legal personality.
The company said it could not comply with court orders about accounts or information it did not control, and its separate legal identity should be respected.
The riders disputed that position, arguing that Uber Kenya facilitates the platform’s operations locally and relied on an intercompany services agreement dated November 1, 2013. They said the agreement raised questions about its involvement.
Uber Kenya said the 2013 agreement expressly excluded an agency, partnership or joint venture, while riders argued that its actual conduct mattered more than the contract’s wording.
In regard to the alleged financial losses suffered by the riders, Uber Kenya said the loss cannot be attributed to its actions.
It maintained that the repossession of motorcycles arose from separate contractual arrangements between Greenwheels and the affected riders.
The riders maintained that Uber Kenya cannot benefit from Uber’s commercial operations in Kenya while disclaiming responsibility for actions affecting Kenyan users of the platform.
In its ruling, the court agreed that corporate links alone do not make one company liable for another’s actions.
But it said that principle did not settle whether Uber Kenya was properly included in the case.
‘The provision of promotional or support services does not, without more, render Uber Kenya responsible for every decision undertaken by Uber B.V.,’ the judge said.
He added that a contractual disclaimer of agency did not automatically resolve whether the company’s actual conduct created an independent legal obligation.
The court said Uber Kenya had not shown that its participation was wholly unnecessary. Evidence was needed to determine its role and access to relevant information.
‘Those matters remain disputed and must be determined on the evidence and the applicable law,’ he said, referring to whether Uber Kenya acted as an agent, participated in account decisions or was responsible for alleged rights violations.
Riders alleged that accounts were suspended after a meeting and some motorcycles were repossessed.
In another 2021 case, the High Court also declined to remove Uber Kenya from proceedings filed by Kanuri Limited and 33 others. The judge considered Uber Kenya’s communications on behalf of Uber B.V. relevant to agency.
Justice Mburu said the precedent did not require the company to remain a party in every app-related case. He dismissed Uber Kenya’s application, ordered that it remain a party and directed that the petition proceed to hearing.
The case is scheduled for mention on December 1, 2026.
Thirty-seven Uber motorcycle riders have secured an initial court victory in their battle with the ride-hailing company over account deactivations without adequately informing them and cutting off their earnings.
The High Court in Nairobi rejected Uber Kenya’s bid to exit the case, ruling that its role in the disputed account deactivations must be examined at a full hearing.
The suit echoes developments in Europe where Uber has been fined billions of shillings for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without adequately informing them.
Related
Transport
PRIME
Uber bullish on Kenya after pulling out of Uganda, Tanzania
Sep 09 – 4 min read
Companies
PRIME
Standoff as Uber, Bolt fares to rise sharply on new rule
Jul 07 – 5 min read
Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation rules ?ban decisions made solely by computer algorithms when they have a significant impact on people’s lives, saying such decisions require meaningful human review and a way to challenge a decision.
‘Uber Kenya has not demonstrated, with the degree of clarity required at this stage, that its participation is wholly unnecessary or that the Petitioners’ allegations against it are so plainly unsustainable as to warrant its removal without a substantive hearing,’ Justice David Mburu ruled.
The riders sued, claiming they were locked out of the platform without notice, reasons or access to evidence behind the decisions.
They say the suspensions denied them a livelihood and the ability to make loan payments for electric motorcycles financed through Greenwheels Electric Mobility Solutions Limited.
The riders say they faced financial hardship in the wake of the suspensions and the risk of auction.
They said Greenwheels Electric Mobility Solutions Limited repossessed motorcycles following the suspension of the affected riders’ accounts.
Filed in March 2026, the petition invokes constitutional protections for fair administrative action, access to information and consumer rights.
The riders claimed that repeated requests for information, including a formal demand dated December 22, 2025, went unanswered, leaving them without reasons for their deactivation or details of the alleged misconduct and evidence relied upon in terminating their accounts.
Uber Kenya asked the court to strike it out from the suit, saying the digital platform is owned and operated by Uber B.V., a separate company incorporated in the Netherlands.
It said its Kenyan role was limited to promotion, helping users register, and providing general support. It denied managing accounts, investigating rider conduct or deciding suspensions, and said it did not hold the information sought.
Disputing that it is a subsidiary of Uber B.V., the company explained that its shareholders are Uber International Holdings B.V. and Uber International B.V., which are separate legal entities.
It maintained that common shareholding does not justify lifting the corporate veil and that the riders have neither sought such relief nor demonstrated fraud, impropriety, sham or misuse of the corporate structure sufficient to warrant disregarding its separate legal personality.
The company said it could not comply with court orders about accounts or information it did not control, and its separate legal identity should be respected.
The riders disputed that position, arguing that Uber Kenya facilitates the platform’s operations locally and relied on an intercompany services agreement dated November 1, 2013. They said the agreement raised questions about its involvement.
Uber Kenya said the 2013 agreement expressly excluded an agency, partnership or joint venture, while riders argued that its actual conduct mattered more than the contract’s wording.
In regard to the alleged financial losses suffered by the riders, Uber Kenya said the loss cannot be attributed to its actions.
It maintained that the repossession of motorcycles arose from separate contractual arrangements between Greenwheels and the affected riders.
The riders maintained that Uber Kenya cannot benefit from Uber’s commercial operations in Kenya while disclaiming responsibility for actions affecting Kenyan users of the platform.
In its ruling, the court agreed that corporate links alone do not make one company liable for another’s actions.
But it said that principle did not settle whether Uber Kenya was properly included in the case.
‘The provision of promotional or support services does not, without more, render Uber Kenya responsible for every decision undertaken by Uber B.V.,’ the judge said.
He added that a contractual disclaimer of agency did not automatically resolve whether the company’s actual conduct created an independent legal obligation.
The court said Uber Kenya had not shown that its participation was wholly unnecessary. Evidence was needed to determine its role and access to relevant information.
‘Those matters remain disputed and must be determined on the evidence and the applicable law,’ he said, referring to whether Uber Kenya acted as an agent, participated in account decisions or was responsible for alleged rights violations.
Riders alleged that accounts were suspended after a meeting and some motorcycles were repossessed.
In another 2021 case, the High Court also declined to remove Uber Kenya from proceedings filed by Kanuri Limited and 33 others. The judge considered Uber Kenya’s communications on behalf of Uber B.V. relevant to agency.
Justice Mburu said the precedent did not require the company to remain a party in every app-related case. He dismissed Uber Kenya’s application, ordered that it remain a party and directed that the petition proceed to hearing.
The case is scheduled for mention on December 1, 2026.