Category: Business Daily

Most investors have not yet come to a realization that quality African businesses have more funding alternatives than before.

A few years back receiving a term sheet from a potential investor was, in many cases, almost synonymous with having a deal done. Yes, read that again.

The company was often grateful simply to have secured an offer. Once the term sheet arrived, management would focus on getting the transaction completed, with limited negotiation on pricing, covenants, security, governance rights, conditions precedent or other commercial terms.

That dynamic has changed.

Today, a quality African business can have several financing options on the table at the same time.

A well-performing company with a credible management team, audited financials, strong cash flows and a clear growth strategy may be approached by multiple banks, private equity funds, private credit providers, DFIs, family offices and commercial banks- all at once.

And increasingly, local and regional banks are willing to compete aggressively for good borrowers – sometimes offering financing at pricing that can be more attractive. Some offering below market price, just to win the client.

This has fundamentally changed the balance of power in fundraising. The work of an Advisor has also evolved, steering the deal to completion and helping the client choose the most appropriate investor, with the most well-suited term sheet.

A term sheet is no longer the finish line. It is the beginning of the negotiation.

We see management teams asking much better questions:

What is the all-in cost of capital?

What security are you requiring, and why?

What financial covenants will apply?

How much control or influence will the investor have?

What happens if the business misses a covenant temporarily?

Are there restrictions on dividends, acquisitions or additional borrowing?

What are the prepayment and exit provisions?

How flexible is the facility as the business grows?

What happens in a downside scenario?

And perhaps most importantly: beyond providing capital, what value are you actually bringing to the business?

That last question is becoming particularly important.

Capital is increasingly commoditised for high-quality businesses.

The investor who simply provides money may no longer have a sufficient competitive advantage; this is where Local Banks fall short and value adding PE and Debt Funds standout.

Companies are looking for investors who can open markets, introduce strategic partners, strengthen governance, support M and A, facilitate subsequent financing, help families transform their business, support succession planning, provide sector expertise and help management navigate periods of growth and uncertainty.

This does not mean capital has become easy to access. It has not.

There remains a significant financing gap across Africa, particularly for businesses that are too large for traditional SME lending but not yet sufficiently institutionalised for conventional private equity or international capital markets.

But for the right businesses, the funding landscape is becoming considerably more competitive.

For investors, this means the question is no longer simply:

‘Can we fund this company?’

The better question is:

‘Why should this company choose us?’

For business owners, it means fundraising should no longer be approached as a search for the first investor willing to provide capital.

It should be approached as a process of capital allocation and partner selection.

In February 2026, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCC) took further steps to streamline merger control within the bloc by introducing an expedited merger review process and formalising procedures for obtaining comfort letters and advisory opinions.

These developments are intended to enhance deal certainty, reduce regulatory delays and provide businesses with greater clarity on their filing obligations under the Comesa Competition and Consumer Protection Regulations, 2025 (Comesa Regulations).

Under the Comesa Regulations, the CCCC is required to issue a decision on a notified merger within 120 days of filing.

The newly introduced expedited review process allows qualifying transactions to be reviewed within a significantly shorter timeframe.

A request for expedited review must be submitted at the time of filing the merger notification through the cover letter accompanying Form 1. The CCCC will then determine eligibility within 30 days of receipt of the notification, having regard to factors such as the nature and complexity of the transaction and whether any Comesa member state has requested a referral of the matter.

Where a transaction qualifies, the CCCC will issue its decision between 30 and 45 days from the date of notification. An additional service fee of $120,000 is payable for expedited review. The expedited review process is, however, subject to important eligibility limitations.

In particular, transactions that are likely to raise competition concerns are ineligible for expedited review. Likewise, a merger notification will not qualify for the expedited review where a member state has requested referral of the transaction under Regulation 45 of the Comesa Regulations.

The CCCC may revoke a transaction’s eligibility for expedited review in certain circumstances. These include where the parties fail to respond to requests for additional information; or where the CCCC receives new information that was not available when it approved the eligibility of the transaction for the expedited service; or where unforeseen circumstances prevent the CCCC from completing the expedited review process.

Where the CCCC revokes a transaction’s eligibility for expedited review due to the exceptional circumstances outlined above, the additional $120,000 service fee is refundable.

The expedited review process offers parties an opportunity to obtain merger clearance within significantly shorter timelines, thereby enhancing transaction certainty for straightforward transactions that are unlikely to raise competition concerns. However, given the additional $120,000 fee and the strict eligibility requirements, parties should carefully assess the commercial value of expedited treatment and consider eligibility at an early stage of transaction planning.

Alongside the expedited review process, the CCCC has also issued guidance setting out the procedure for obtaining a comfort letter. The acquiring undertaking, alone or jointly with other parties, may apply for a comfort letter confirming that a proposed transaction is not notifiable because it does not meet the Comesa notification thresholds. Such an application must be submitted through a comfort letter in the prescribed format together with supporting information, including the merging parties’ turnover and assets, the member states in which they operate, audited financial statements for the preceding financial years and a $10,000 filing fee.

Once all required information has been provided, the CCCC will issue a certificate of receipt and is expected to render its decision within 45 days. The review period will not commence until the CCCC considers the application complete.

Parties should note that a comfort letter may be revoked where it was obtained through a material misstatement or omission.

In such circumstances, the CCCC may determine that the parties failed to notify a notifiable merger or implemented a transaction in contravention of the Comesa Regulations, exposing them to the penalties prescribed under Regulation 77, including fines of up to a maximum of 10 percent of the annual turnover of each of the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned in the Common Market.

While the formalisation of the comfort letter process provides parties with greater certainty where the applicability of Comesa filing thresholds is unclear, parties should ensure that all information submitted is complete and accurate.

While advisory opinions are not legally binding, they provide valuable insight into the CCCC’s interpretation and application of the Comesa Regulations, enabling parties to better assess regulatory risk and structure transactions and commercial arrangements with greater certainty and at a significantly lower cost.

The introduction of expedited merger reviews, comfort letters and advisory opinions reflects the CCCC’s continued efforts to improve the efficiency, predictability and transparency of the Comesa competition framework.

Businesses contemplating transactions with a Comesa nexus should consider these new mechanisms at an early stage to optimise transaction timelines, manage regulatory risk and obtain greater certainty regarding filing obligations.

The CCCC has also formalised its approach to advisory opinions. Pursuant to Regulation 9(4)(e), the CCCC may issue non-binding advisory opinions on matters arising under the Comesa Regulations.

Any undertaking or person may request an advisory opinion from the Registrar by submitting the required supporting information and proof of payment of the prescribed $10,000 fee.

The CCCC will then assess the request and issue its advisory opinion within 45 days of receipt, although this period may be extended by up to 30 additional days where necessary.

Homeowners at Karibu Homes, also known as River View Estate in Athi River, recently raised concerns about their houses developing serious defects after moving in. Their complaints point to a wider question that recurs in Kenyan property disputes: What happens when the house develops serious defects after the keys are handed over?

Understanding what is going wrong structurally is the first step, because not every crack signals that a house is unsafe. Gitonga Muchiri, an assistant resident engineer at RailRoad EPC Consultants Ltd, says some cracking falls within limits allowed under engineering codes.

“Not all cracks compromise the integrity of a structure,” he says, referring to what is termed the Serviceability Limit State. ‘The severity of a crack depends on its width, direction, location, depth and whether it continues to move.’

Hairline cracks, generally under one millimetre and consistent along their length, are typically the result of plaster drying quickly and are not usually a cause for concern. Cracks wider than three millimetres, however, warrant closer inspection.

“Tapered cracks that are narrow at the bottom but wide at the top indicate structural rotation or differential settlement. A widening crack suggests the structural elements are pulling apart,” Gitonga says.

The underlying causes vary. Foundation problems, unstable soil, poor workmanship and design flaws are all common contributors.

Gitonga notes that buildings constructed on expansive soils such as black cotton soil, on poorly compacted ground, or in areas with a high water table are particularly prone to cracking as conditions beneath them change.

Substandard foundation materials and poor masonry work compound the risk. Seismic activity, insufficient reinforcement, overloading and long stretches of wall or slab without adequate expansion joints are also cited as contributing factors.

A more serious concern arises when the same pattern of cracking appears across multiple houses within a single development.

“This might be an indicator of systemic structural distress rather than an isolated case,” Gitonga says, pointing to possible factors such as expansive soils, poor drainage, groundwater movement or inadequate soil compaction across a development.

Where cracks appear and continue to grow, his advice is to seek professional assessment rather than cosmetic repair.

“An engineer cannot diagnose a structural defect by simply looking at a crack. We must analytically evaluate the soil properties, groundwater conditions, etc,” he says.

The appropriate remedy depends on the findings. Foundation instability or expansive soil may require underpinning or micro piling, while problems linked to groundwater may call for improved drainage alongside further geotechnical investigation. Costs vary according to the extent of the damage, consultancy fees, materials, the depth of any foundation works and the specialised labour required.

Who should bear the costs?

According to Chris Gichangi, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and partner at G.M Gamma Advocates LLP, the developer will generally be the primary party liable where a defect is linked to poor workmanship, defective materials, inadequate design or failure to comply with approved plans and construction standards.

“The developer may in turn pursue architects, engineers, contractors or subcontractors responsible for the defect but that does not necessarily defeat the purchaser’s claim against the developer,” he says.

Court rulings

Kenyan courts have dealt with a number of such disputes.

In Winfred N. Karanja v Regnoil Kenya Limited,[2018] KEHC 3981 (KLR) a buyer of a maisonette at Diamond Park Estate in Nairobi complained of a leaking roof, inferior doors and windows, inconsistent finishes, missing electrical fittings and an uneven staircase.

A quantity surveyor estimated remedial works at approximately Sh2.15 million. The High Court found the developer in breach of contract, ordered the defects remedied and awarded the buyer Sh1.5 million in general damages.

Whether liability survives handover depends on the sale agreement and the nature of the defect.

“Most sale agreements for residential developments contain contractual mechanisms that regulate the developer’s post-completion obligations,” Chris says, citing defects liability periods, maintenance periods, warranties and procedures for reporting defects.

The expiry of an express defects liability period does not automatically extinguish every possible claim, particularly where a defect is latent, structural or could not reasonably have been detected at handover.

Disputes involving multiple homeowners tend to carry greater financial exposure.

In Michael Kimondiu and 3 others v Garden Real Estate Development Limited,[2021] KEELC 717 (KLR), purchasers at Cullinan Apartments in Nairobi took their dispute to arbitration, claiming approximately Sh96.3 million. They sought to preserve unsold units owned by the developer in case they were needed to satisfy a future award.

The developer disputed the allegations and maintained that the apartments had been properly constructed and certified for occupation.

The court’s ruling concerned preservation of the units during arbitration and did not determine whether the alleged defects existed.

John Misonga Lwangu and 122 others v Fort Properties Limited and 4 others,[2021] KEHC 563 (KLR), involved more than 100 purchasers who alleged their houses were structurally and architecturally defective and unsuitable for habitation. The 2021 ruling addressed procedural matters rather than the substantive allegations.

Chris says homeowners affected by similar defects may, depending on the circumstances, bring a joint or representative claim.

‘Kenyan procedural law permits persons with common questions of law or fact to institute proceedings jointly,’ he says, adding that this can apply to problems such as cracking, foundation settlement, drainage failures, sewerage defects or structural instability.

In Stephen Kariuki Wairia v Haraka Enterprises Limited,[2015] KECA 485 (KLR), a homeowner in Lavington withheld Sh813,075 from his contractor, citing wall cracks severe enough to break ceramic tiles and a hole in the chimney he linked to a fire that damaged his property.

Although a lower court initially ruled in his favour, the High Court later found that the works had been completed and the defects addressed, a decision the Court of Appeal upheld after considering evidence from an engineer who had inspected the house. The case illustrates that establishing what caused a defect is as important as establishing that damage exists.

Liability beyond the house

Chris notes that where a developer attributes defects to soil conditions, poor maintenance, homeowner alterations or third parties, the matter is resolved through evidence, citing “structural engineering reports, geotechnical investigations, approved architectural and structural plans, construction records, inspection reports and expert testimony.”

Liability can also extend beyond the individual dwelling. A buyer in a gated or sectional development typically has an interest in roads, drainage, sewerage, parking and security infrastructure.

The Sectional Properties Act 2020 provides for an owners’ corporation to manage and administer common property, with proprietors contributing towards its expenses. It also requires the transfer of documents including warranties, structural, electrical, mechanical and architectural drawings, and information on underground utilities.

Responsibility for defects affecting shared infrastructure depends on ownership, control, the terms of handover and the cause of the defect, Chris says. Where infrastructure problems stem from poor design, construction or materials predating handover, the developer may remain liable.

Responsibility for routine maintenance typically shifts to the management corporation or owners once infrastructure has been properly completed and handed over.

Financial losses are not always confined to repair costs. In Muigai v Kipagi Limited,[2021] KEHC 388 (KLR), a purchaser who had agreed to buy property in Thika for Sh26.5 million alleged undisclosed material defects.

The dispute proceeded to arbitration, where the purchaser sought compensation including the Sh6.5 million already paid and more than Sh1.2 million in bank interest. The arbitrator awarded approximately Sh7.55 million, and subsequent High Court proceedings concerned enforcement of that award.

According to Chris, available remedies depend on the nature and seriousness of the defects, the terms of the sale agreement and the evidence of loss. These may include an order requiring the developer to repair or complete works, damages for repair costs or diminished value, compensation for alternative accommodation or lost rental income, and, in serious cases, rescission of the contract and recovery of the purchase price.

For prospective buyers,the lawyer recommends technical, legal and background due diligence before purchasing a home in a gated development. This includes an independent structural inspection, verification of approvals, review of title documents and sectional plans, and scrutiny of management and service charge arrangements.

He also advises checking a developer’s track record and any ongoing litigation, along with soil conditions, drainage, flooding risk and ground instability.

Where defects emerge years after purchase, Chris recommends that homeowners preserve sale agreements, offer letters, completion certificates, warranties, structural and geotechnical reports, inspection reports, photographs, videos, repair quotations and invoices, along with records of alternative accommodation expenses, valuation reports and correspondence with the developer and estate management.

“Prompt acquisition and preservation of expert evidence significantly strengthens any future claim by providing credible and contemporaneous proof of defects, losses and liability,” Gichangi says.

More than 100 residents of Chandavai in Lamu have accused the government of displacing them from their ancestral land to pave the way for major infrastructure projects, including the proposed Dangote East Africa Refinery.

The 133 residents of Mvinjeni claim that expansion of the projects has resulted in the destruction of their homes, crops, trees and other property, leaving them without a resettlement plan and turning them into internally displaced persons.

They filed a case at the Environment and Land Court ahead of tomorrow’s groundbreaking ceremony for the Sh2.2 trillion refinery. ‘The Plaintiffs seek redress from this honourable court to protect their civil and constitutional rights and secure their livelihoods as any Kenyan citizen should under the Constitution of Kenya,’ they say in court papers.

The residents claim they only learnt later that the land-which they had farmed and on which they had lived for generations-had been acquired by the government for the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (Lapsset) Corridor project. They allege that Lapsset later handed over the land to the Ministry of Defence for construction of roads and expansion of military and airport facilities without their knowledge, participation, or consent.

The disputed parcels are said to be near Manda Bay Camp, which hosts the Kenya Navy Base, the US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.

The residents added that their families have developed the land; built homes, mosques and shrines; and buried their loved ones there.

They claim the parcels are community land under the stewardship of Lamu County and they have peacefully occupied it without ownership disputes.

The residents say their troubles began on August 7, 2024, when Kenya Defence Forces officers, local chiefs and other government agents entered their land with bulldozers and heavy machinery. The officials destroyed crops, trees and other property without prior notice, consultation or compensation, they add.

They say they depended on the land for food production and livestock keeping, hence the destruction deprived them of their economic mainstay.

They claim that when they sought answers from the local administration, they were informed that the land had been acquired for the Lapsset project and subsequently allocated to the Defence ministry. They further allege that the land was earmarked for construction of the Lapsset road, infrastructure expansion and emergency services linked to Manda Bay military facilities.

They also claim they were told the expansion included 294,000 square feet of airfield construction, increased fuel storage capacity and accommodation facilities for hundreds of US service members on rotational deployment. They say local administrators asked them not to interfere with construction activities and promised compensation for destroyed crops. Some of them, they claim, were forced to move into rented houses to give way to construction and expansion of the Lapsset road, Kenya Navy Base, US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.

‘The Plaintiffs aver that they and their ancestors have lived on, cultivated, and developed the suit property for generations and that the land has been passed down through families, with no formal title deeds issued to them,’ the residents said.

Some of them, they claim, were forced to move into rented houses to give way to construction and expansion of the Lapsset road, Kenya Navy Base, US Camp Simba and Magogoni Airfield.

The residents claim that in May 2026, President William Ruto announced that Dangote Industries would construct a $15 billion to $20 billion oil refinery in Kenya, leveraging the Lapsset Corridor in Lamu.

They allege that in July, Dangote Industries, through its engineering and project management contractors, began excavating deep holes for soil testing and preparing the site for construction of refinery tanks, pipelines, storage facilities and other infrastructure.

The residents argue that although they do not hold formal title deeds, their long occupation, cultivation and development of the land gives them compensable interests under Article 40(4) of the Constitution and the Land Act.

They contend that they qualify as ‘interested persons’ under the compulsory acquisition provisions of the Land Act because they are actual occupants of the land, even where their interests are not reflected in the land register.

The petitioners accuse the government of failing to conduct proper surveys and valuations of their land and property, denying them fair compensation and due process.

They also accuse authorities of failing to consult them or involve them in decisions affecting their property.

The residents want the court to protect their constitutional and property rights, arguing that the compulsory acquisition process has proceeded without recognising their interests or giving them an opportunity to participate.

Kenyans flying back into the country have accused Immigration officers at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) of soliciting bribes from passengers, to move up the long queues as congestion hits the country’s main airport due to capacity constraints.

The Business Daily has learnt of multiple recent incidents when some travellers were moved up the queues at the immigration checkpoint at JKIA after paying enticement to officials.

“Having just arrived from a country where systems are applied consistently and without favour, I found this experience extremely disheartening,’ a traveller, who requested to remain anonymous, told Business Daily.

“Such practices create a perception of preferential treatment and undermine confidence in the fairness and professionalism of our public institutions. As a Kenyan, I left feeling genuinely disappointed.’

Another traveller said he was expedited through the immigration checkpoint after parting with a Sh5,000 enticement.

The incidents point to a deeper problem at Kenya’s main international gateway, where congestion and long queues are creating opportunities for immigration officials to bypass established clearance procedures, and solicit unofficial payments from frustrated passengers.

The Directorate of Immigration Services did not respond to Business Daily queries on the bribery claims. The Kenya Airports Authority (KAA), which manages airports and is tasked with ensuring travellers have a good experience, asked affected travelers to report such incidents.

‘Immigration clearance is undertaken by the Directorate of Immigration Services, within the State Department for Immigration and Citizen Services under the Ministry of Interior and National Administration,’ it said in a response to Business Daily queries.

‘KAA remains responsible for coordinating airport service delivery and working with the relevant agencies to address concerns affecting the passenger experience. We would welcome the travel dates, approximate times, clearance locations and any other relevant details, to enable referral to the Directorate for investigation and follow-up.’

Beyond the financial and time cost to travellers, air travel experts argue such practices threaten to undermine confidence in JKIA, at a time when Kenya is seeking to position the airport as a competitive regional aviation hub and expand its capacity to handle rising passenger traffic.

Travellers have expressed frustration with such incidents.

Sources said the immigration officials typically approach people with Kenyan passports, while foreign travellers are moved up the queue with the help of local tour firms or hotels waiting for them at the airport.

Travellers are typically expected to be treated the same at ports of entry, except for unique situations that may require a traveller to be moved up the queue or processed separately.

For instance, priority passengers, including elderly travellers, pregnant women, disabled people or sick individuals, do not need to queue for immigration checks. But as the airport increasingly gets congested, frequent flyers worry fast service may become a reserve for a few individuals willing to bend the law and pay more to the detriment of other travellers.

KAA says there are ongoing projects to ease congestion at JKIA.

‘The Directorate of Immigration Services, in partnership with KAA, is currently installing electronic immigration gates, beginning with Terminal 1A. Installation at this terminal is expected to be completed by the end of October 2026. Once operational, the e-gates are expected to expedite clearance for eligible passengers and reduce pressure on staffed counters,’ the agency told Business Daily.

‘The JKIA modernisation project, which is ongoing, also provides for the optimisation and reconfiguration of existing terminals, modernisation of passenger-processing systems and development of additional terminal capacity. These interventions are designed to ease current bottlenecks and accommodate growing traffic.’

This year, JKIA is expected to handle over 9 million passengers, far above the 7.5 million it was designed to process every year. This has meant that passengers mostly have to endure abnormally long queues at immigration checkpoints and airline check-in counters, according to consultancy firm Dar, which was last year hired by KAA to design the development masterplan for the airport.

The current terminal is supposed to be upgraded to immediately raise capacity to at least 12 million passengers a year, while a new terminal will raise the airport’s capacity to 25 million passengers a year.

Kenya’s tourism story has long been defined by our extraordinary wildlife, beaches and culture. These remain powerful attractions, but as we pursue our ambition of reaching 5.5 million international visitors by 2028, Kenya is looking beyond traditional leisure tourism to identify the next engines of growth.

One opportunity clearly stands out, Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (MICE).

Globally, MICE has become an important driver of tourism and wider economic activity. According to the International Congress and Convention Association, more than 11,000 international meetings were held globally in 2024.

The exhibitions industry on the other hand illustrates the scale even more clearly.

According to UFI, the Global Association of the Exhibition Industry, exhibitions generated approximately $150 billion in direct spending in 2024, attracted 318 million visitors and supported 1.8 million direct jobs and 4.3 million jobs in total.

These numbers matter to tourism because the value of a delegate extends far beyond the conference room. A visitor attending a three-day event needs accommodation, transport, food and other services.

Many also extend their stays, experience local attractions and return later for leisure. MICE therefore creates an opportunity to grow arrivals, bed nights, visitor spending and repeat travel simultaneously.

Destinations are already demonstrating what is possible, Singapore, for example, recorded $2.3 billion in MICE tourism receipts in 2025, a 35 percent increase from the previous year. It also hosted 156 international association meetings, an eight percent increase year-on-year.

These gains demonstrate how deliberately developing business events can strengthen a destination’s tourism economy.

For Kenya, the opportunity comes at an important moment, we are already building the infrastructure needed to compete for larger international events. For many years, the Kenyatta International Convention Centre has been a cornerstone of Kenya’s conference industry and one of the region’s established convention facilities.

It has enabled Nairobi to host major international, regional and diplomatic meetings while connecting delegates to the city’s wider tourism offering.

Today, that capacity is expanding, the private sector continues to invest in hotels and hospitality properties with modern conference and meeting facilities. This is important because Kenya’s MICE proposition cannot depend on a single venue. It must be an ecosystem bringing together hotels, convention facilities, airlines, restaurants, destination management companies, tour operators and attractions.

Government investment is also changing the scale of what Kenya can offer. The Bomas International Convention Complex, currently under development, is expected to significantly expand the country’s capacity to host large-scale international conferences, exhibitions and events.

With major convention spaces, additional halls and numerous meeting and breakout rooms, the facility will enable Kenya to pursue events requiring capacities beyond those currently available.

The government is also taking a more deliberate approach to attracting international events, with the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife working to identify, bid for and secure major conferences and other business events for the country.

MICE is increasingly being positioned as a strategic component of Kenya’s broader effort to reach 5.5 million international visitors by 2028, bringing together public resources and private-sector partnerships to strengthen the country’s proposition to international event organisers.

But infrastructure alone will not win the business, we must become more deliberate in identifying the right events, bidding competitively for them, packaging the destination and creating experiences that encourage delegates to stay longer.

The Kenya Tourism Board will continue to position Kenya as a place where people meet, connect and experience. A conference in Nairobi can extend into a wildlife experience in the Maasai Mara, a coastal holiday, a cultural encounter, a culinary experience or an adventure across one of our many tourism circuits.

The 16th Magical Kenya Travel Expo (MKTE) provides a timely platform for this ambition. As we bring together international buyers and Kenya’s tourism industry, our objective extends beyond selling leisure excursions. We are also using these relationships to open conversations around conferences, exhibitions, incentive programmes and corporate events that can bring more visitors to Kenya.

If we are serious about reaching 5.5 million international visitors, MICE must be part of the equation. Kenya has the connectivity, experiences, growing hospitality investment and expanding convention infrastructure to strengthen its position in this market.

Our task now is to turn that potential into sustained international business.

In August 3-5, 2026, leaders from across Africa gathered at ‘The Resilience in Leadership Africa Conference’ in Nairobi that was themed, ‘Enhancing Our Capacity, Human Security and Sustainability.’ The conference underscored that poor leadership is eroding institutions, draining productivity and weakening resilience.

For too long, organisations have equated tenure and performance metrics with leadership potential. The longest-serving employee or the highest revenue generator is assumed to be the natural successor.

Yet this formula has produced leaders who lack empathy, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal skills – the very qualities that inspire teams and sustain organizational culture. The result is disengagement, attrition, and spiraling costs.

Early in my career, I appointed a long-serving and top-performing team member to lead Regional Relationship Managers. Within two months, complaints poured in: poor communication, lack of empathy, and an inability to resolve conflicts.

Despite his stellar performance record, he was not suited for leadership. I had to replace him with someone who could connect with the team, proving that leadership is about people, not just numbers. This is not unique. Across Kenya, companies that promote leaders based solely on tenure or performance often face high turnover and low morale.

A Federation of Kenya Employers survey (2025) found that 54 percent of employees cited poor management as the main reason for leaving their jobs. In other words, the problem is systemic and costly. The National Conference on Workplace Protection (May 25-26, 2026) estimated that workplace harassment and poor leadership cost Kenya’s private sector Sh95.5 billion annually.

Poor leadership directly impacts organisational performance and costs. Contrast this with organizations that have embraced holistic leadership selection. Safaricom, for example, has invested heavily in employee engagement surveys and leadership development programs.

By prioritising emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills, the company has consistently ranked among Kenya’s ‘Best Places to Work.’

The lesson is clear: when leaders connect with their teams, performance follows. When employee turnover is low the replacement costs are lower, saving companies hidden costs borne in recruitment processes.

Organisations must invest in leadership development. Continuous training, feedback, and tools such as 360-degree feedback are essential. Fortune 500 companies like Google and Netflix use these systems to promote transparency and fairness.

Kenyan firms are beginning to follow suit, recognizing that leadership quality is a governance and economic imperative. Annual leadership surveys, employee engagement tools, and structured mentorship programs can help organizations identify and nurture leaders with the right skills. These investments pay off in retention, engagement, and ultimately, financial success.

It is time to rethink leadership selection. Tenure and performance metrices can no longer be the yardstick of leadership appointments.

What sustains organizations are leaders who build Trust, show empathy, demonstrate emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills.

Poor leadership choices lead to broken cultures, disengaged employees and hidden cost draining company profits. Strong leadership is not optional; it is the cornerstone of an organization’s survival and success.

A shareholder of Mumias Sugar has reported the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) to the office of the Ombudsman, accusing the regulator of failing to address his concerns about the continued suspension of the miller’s stock

The shareholder, Taiti Hanningtone, wrote to CMA on August 27 through city law firm I.C. Law LLP asking for reasons for the continued suspension of the stock, and whether the company has been complying with regulations requiring it to furnish shareholders with material information, including financial results.

He said the prolonged suspension has left shareholders without sufficient information concerning the regulatory status and future of their investment.

In its reply, the CMA declined to offer specific responses to the 33 queries filed by Mr Hanningtone, citing Section 13 (2) of the Capital Markets Act that restricts disclosure of information it gathers in the course of exercising its functions.

CMA also directed some of the queries to Mumias and its receiver manager, while noting that disclosures on prospective or ongoing regulatory and receivership processes would be speculative.

In his letter to the Commission on Administrative Justice (Ombudsman), Mr Hanningtone has taken issue with the CMA’s response, saying that CMA Act contemplates disclosure in edited or redacted form where only part of a record is exempt, rather than a blanket refusal on information.

He has also faulted the decision to direct him to the company for answers without confirmation whether the CMA already holds the information that he sought in his letter.

‘The applicant respectfully requests that the Commission find that the CMA’s reliance on section 13(2) of the Act, without a corresponding item specific application of section 6 of the Access to Information Act, 2016, does not constitute a lawful basis for refusal under the Act,’ reads the application.

‘Order the CMA to provide item specific written reasons, by reference to section 6(1) of the Act, for its refusal in respect of each of the 33 requests set out in the applicant’s letter of August 27, 2026 that remains unanswered.’

Mumias was suspended from trading in September 2019 after it was put into receivership by KCB Bank over debt default. At the time of suspension, Mumias owed banks Sh12.5 billion.

The miller was initially suspended for a period of three months, which was extended by a further three months at the expiry of the initial freeze. In April 2020, CMA announced that the suspension had been extended indefinitely.

Mumias was trading at Sh0.27 per share when it was suspended, with a market capitalisation of Sh413.1 million.

It is among six companies that are currently frozen from trading at the Nairobi Securities Exchange, locking in Sh27 billion in paper wealth for the affected investors. The others are ARM Cement, Bamburi Cement, East African Cables, TransCentury and Deacons East Africa.

Even as the sugar miller remains suspended from trading, its assets in Western Kenya were leased to Ugandan businessman Sarbjit Singh Rai through his firm Sarrai Group in 2021, for a period of 20 years.

In its letter to Mr Hanningtone, the CMA said that it continues to exercise its statutory oversight over the company as a listed issuer, while also respecting the primacy of the process under the Insolvency Act 2015 and directions of the courts handling the receivership related proceedings.

‘The exercise by the Authority of its regulatory oversight must not contradict but align to the ongoing insolvency and court processes,’ said the CMA in its letter dated September 18.

The CMA added that it carried out an onsite governance inspection of Mumias in May 2025, assessing the corporate governance structures of the company and arrangements to safeguard the interests of stakeholders, secured and unsecured creditors and shareholders.

Oil marketer Total Kenya has been ordered to pay Sh20.7 million to a former dealer after the High Court found that the company continued using his business name, Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) PIN, telephone number and email address months after their business relationship had ended.

The court found that Total Kenya Limited used David Kamau Ngure’s credentials and trade name, Dasken Enterprises, without his consent or authority for about 230 days, between January 1 and August 18, 2020.

‘It is therefore my finding that the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that Total unlawfully continued to use his business name and KRA PIN after termination of the MLA (Marketing Licence Agreement),’ said the court.

The court further ordered the oil company to relinquish control of Mr Ngure’s email address and unsubscribe his telephone number, while awarding him costs of the suit.

The judgment, delivered on July 27, 2026, arose from a dispute over the operation of Total’s Likoni Road Service Station in Nairobi’s Industrial Area.

Mr Ngure had been engaged by Total as a ‘Young Dealer’ to manage the station under an MLA, operating through his business name Dasken Enterprises.

The relationship was terminated effective December 31, 2019, although Total said the station was formally handed over on February 24, 2020.

Mr Ngure complained that despite the termination, Total continued operating the station using his business name, KRA PIN, telephone number and email address.

The High Court found evidence supporting his claim, including invoices and tax withholding certificates showing that transactions at the station continued to bear his KRA PIN long after the agreement had ended.

Total had denied having access to or control of Mr Ngure’s PIN and related email address, arguing that these remained under the control of his employees before termination.

The company also said the MLA was terminated after it discovered alleged fraud involving the Total Card system, which Mr Ngure could not adequately explain. Total maintained that responsibility for tax obligations remained with Mr Ngure even after termination.

One of the witnesses, Tandu Alarm Systems Limited, confirmed that it fuelled fleet vehicles on credit at the station between December 2019 and July 2020. The invoices issued by Total bore Mr Ngure’s KRA PIN.

Other invoices and a tax withholding certificate issued by Samura Engineering Limited as late as August 18, 2020, also carried the PIN.

The court held that Total had created the tax liabilities through its own actions and should account for and settle them, rather than Mr Ngure being treated as the beneficial owner of the transactions.

‘As such, I find that Total should render a full account of all VAT, PAYE and income tax returns filed using the Plaintiff’s PIN from 1st January 2020 to 18th August 2020 and it should settle all tax liabilities, penalties, and interest arising from those transactions with KRA,’ said the court.

Total was ordered to provide a full account of VAT and income tax returns filed using Mr Ngure’s PIN and to settle the resulting tax liabilities, penalties and interest with KRA.

After Total provides proof of settlement, KRA was directed to delete, expunge or apportion the liabilities from Mr Ngure’s PIN and transfer them to Total’s PIN within 30 days.

The court also ordered Total to settle, within 90 days, all outstanding National Social Security Fund (NSSF) obligations and penalties relating to employees at the Likoni Road station for the period January 1 to December 31, 2020.

Mr Ngure told the court that Total’s continued use of his credentials exposed him to tax liabilities and prevented him from obtaining a tax compliance certificate, besides causing economic and reputational harm.

The court found that his constitutional rights to privacy and property under Articles 31 and 40 had been violated. It also held that Total’s continued use of his personal data without consent after termination of the relationship amounted to a breach of Section 30 of the Data Protection Act.

KRA, which was joined in the case, acknowledged receiving Mr Ngure’s complaint about alleged unauthorised use of his PIN but argued that he retained control over his credentials and could change them.

The High Court, however, found that KRA had acted lawfully but directed it to remove or apportion the liabilities after Total settles or accounts for the transactions.

Total Kenya has since filed a notice of appeal against the judgment.

Kenya does not have a start-up problem; it has a scale-up problem. Every year, hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs launch businesses, yet relatively few grow into medium-sized enterprises, national champions, or regional players.

The country has one of Africa ‘s most vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems, with innovative founders, active investors, a thriving fintech sector and a growing business support network. Yet too many businesses remain trapped in survival mode, unable to grow into productive, resilient, and regionally competitive enterprises.

The challenge is not simply the access to money or lack of it. It is the ability to match the right type of finance to the right stage of growth, build strong business systems, exercise disciplined capital allocation, and convert financing into long-term productivity.

According to Kenya National Bureau of Statistics’ MSME Survey, Kenya has more than 7.4 million micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), contributing approximately 34 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and supporting over 15 million jobs, equivalent to about 85 percent of non-farm employment. These businesses are the bedrock of Kenya’s economy.

Despite their economic importance, financing is often cited as one of the primary obstacles to their growth. The sector still faces an estimated Sh2.5 trillion financing gap, according to World Bank/IFC MSME finance-gap estimates. Estimates suggest that only 20 percent to 23 percent of MSMEs in Kenya have access to bank financing with over 60 percent citing lack of collateral, high cost of credit and stringent documentation as key deterrents.

But the financing gap facing MSMEs is about more than limited credit. It reflects a deeper structural mismatch between the economic importance of small businesses and the availability of patient, appropriately structured capital that supports sustainable growth. It also reflects the reality that many enterprises remain informal, undocumented and operationally fragile, making them difficult to finance at scale.

The challenge, therefore, is not only expanding access to finance, but improving businesses’ readiness to absorb and deploy capital productively.

Too often, the conversation around business finance ends with access to credit. But securing finance is only part of the equation.

The more important question is whether businesses are using the right type of capital for the right purpose. Many firms make the costly mistake of financing long-term assets with short-term borrowing or using equity to fund routine working-capital needs. Both approaches create unnecessary financial pressure, distort cash flows and erode value.

What businesses need is capital fit – the financial equivalent of product-market fit – where the source, term, cost and purpose of capital align with the cash flow profile of the business. Businesses that master this discipline are better positioned to grow sustainably than those that simply raise more money.

In the earliest stages of a business, patient capital is often the most appropriate form of funding. Personal savings, family and friends, angel investors and grants can provide the flexibility needed to test ideas, refine products, and validate a business model before taking on significant financial obligations. Take the example of a technology start-up developing a mobile application.

During its first year, the business is unlikely to require a multimillion-shilling bank loan. Instead, it needs patient capital that allows the founders to refine its product, attract customers, and validate the business model before seeking more funding.

But even at this stage, the objective should not be survival alone. It should be readiness.

Founders must use this period to build the fundamentals that make future growth possible: proper financial records, separation of personal and business finances, sound governance, tax compliance and management systems. Many Kenyan businesses struggle to scale because they remain too informal for too long.

The conversation must therefore move from credit access to credit readiness, because businesses that cannot produce reliable records, forecasts and controls will struggle to convert early traction into scalable finance.

As businesses begin generating consistent revenues, their financing needs become more sophisticated.

Growth requires investment in inventory, technology, equipment, distribution networks and human capital. At this stage, working capital facilities, overdrafts, trade finance and asset financing become essential tools for expansion.

Consider a furniture manufacturer that secures a large supply contract with a national retailer. The business may not need a long-term investment loan; it needs short-term liquidity to purchase timber, pay suppliers, and finance production before payment is received. By contrast, a manufacturer funding a five-year machinery investment through a 90-day overdraft is misallocating capital and setting itself up for recurring cash flow stress.

The issue here is not whether finance exists, but whether it is fit for purpose. In a market where many firms still operate with thin margins and limited buffers, the wrong capital structure can erase the gains from growth. This is one reason so many promising Kenyan businesses stall: they grow faster than their financial systems, and the strain eventually catches up with them.

This is also the stage where competitive advantage begins to shift. Entrepreneurs today can draw from banks, development finance institutions, venture capital, private equity, fintechs and trade finance solutions. Access to capital alone is no longer a differentiator. The real differentiator is how effectively business’s structure capital, manage cash flow, and convert financing into productivity.

In a market where funding options are broader than ever, execution discipline becomes the true source of advantage.

This distinction often determines whether a business remains small or scales into a sustainable enterprise by turning each shilling of capital into higher output, stronger margins, and replicable systems. Kenya’s scaling challenge is therefore not just financial. It is managerial, operational, and strategic.

For SMEs, securing capital is not simply about pitching a compelling idea; it is about demonstrating operational readiness long before approaching potential financiers.

That readiness begins with rigorous market analysis to develop a deeper understanding of one’s target customers, industry trends, competitive dynamics and supply-chain risks well enough to make informed strategic decisions.

It also requires businesses to formalise their operations. Sound business plans, reliable financial records, robust contracting processes, clear organisational structures, and experienced management are not merely administrative requirements but proof that a business has the discipline and capacity to execute its strategy.

But operational strength alone is not enough. It must be underpinned by good governance. A transparent framework, supported by a board of directors or advisory council and clear policies and lines of accountability. This reduces reliance on individual decision-makers and strengthens institutional resilience.

For financiers, these are important signals that a business is not built around one person or one opportunity, but has the structures and discipline required to deploy capital responsibly and sustain growth over the long term.This is also why strong banking relationships matter. The most successful businesses do not approach banks only when they are in distress or urgently need funding.

They build relationships early, share reliable information, and demonstrate sound governance, consistent performance and financial discipline over time. Increasingly, banks assess businesses not only on collateral, but also on the quality of their financial reporting, transaction history, cash-flow management and compliance practices.

At its core, lending is built on confidence. Strong financial records, consistent account activity, sound governance, and disciplined cash-flow management reduce information asymmetry between businesses and lenders, enabling banks to make better-informed credit decisions. The strongest banking relationships are therefore built long before a loan application is submitted.

The next frontier for Kenyan businesses is regional and continental expansion. According to the World Bank, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) opens access to a market of about 1.4 billion consumers with a combined GDP of more than $3.4 trillion. Yet many businesses still prepare only for the Kenyan market, even as the opportunity increasingly requires continental scale.

That gap matters because, according to UNCTAD and Afreximbank, intra-African trade still accounts for only about 15 percent of total African trade, compared with roughly 60 percent in Europe. Regional growth requires capital strategy aligned to cross-border trade, market entry, payment systems, regulatory compliance and trusted commercial networks. Kenyan firms that remain domestically focused risk being overtaken by more agile regional competitors that are better prepared to operate across borders.

Today, institutions are complementing financing with solutions that help businesses to understand new markets, identify trusted trading partners, and build cross-border commercial relationships. Ecobank is already supporting businesses across the spectrum, from MSMEs to established local corporates, by combining access to finance with the tools, networks and market opportunities they need to scale.

Ecobank’s Single Market Trade Hub is doing exactly this by connecting businesses to more than 6,000 verified trade partners across Africa to unlock cross-border opportunities. By combining finance with market access and commercial networks, such platforms help to turn regional trade frameworks such as AfCFTA from high-level policy frameworks into a catalysts for business expansion.

The purpose of financing thereby, is not simply to increase the number of businesses, but to increase the productivity of the economy. When capital is matched to the right stage of growth and deployed strategically, businesses invest in technology, expand production, create better-quality jobs and compete successfully beyond national borders.

Kenya’s challenge, therefore, is not merely to produce more entrepreneurs, but to build more businesses that can scale sustainably. Otherwise, Kenya risks remaining a nation of entrepreneurs without becoming a nation of globally competitive enterprises capable of driving long-term economic transformation.