Category: Business Daily

Rapper and songwriter Nyamari Ongegu (Nyashinski) has suffered another setback in a copyright infringement case filed against him by a Nigerian music producer.

The celebrated rapper will now be compelled to produce contract documents on a multi-million-shilling brand ambassador deal he signed with Tecno Kenya in May 2023, potentially revealing how much he was paid under the agreement.

This follows the High Court’s dismissal of an appeal in which Nyashinski had sought to prevent disclosure of the contract and its financial details.

Sources familiar with the deal told Business Daily that the deal that made Nyashinski the face of Tecno’s Camon 20 smartphone was worth about Sh12million.

Nyashinski’s legal troubles in the matter date back to 2023, when Nigerian music producer Sam Are Eliapenda filed a case at a Magistrate’s Court accusing the rapper of infringing his copyright when he entered into the endorsement deal with the Chinese smartphone manufacturer without his consent.

Eliapenda produced the beats for Nyashinski’s hit song Wach Wach, which was prominently featured in Tecno’s Camon 20 marketing campaigns following the endorsement deal.

The producer argued that, as the creator of the music used by Tecno in commercials featuring Nyashinski, he was entitled to a share of the earnings from the contract. Eliapenda told the court that he had unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement with Nyashinski before turning to the courts.

In his plea, the producer asked the Magistrate’s Court to compel Nyashinski to produce the endorsement contract and related financial records so that the amount he received from the deal could be established.

On August 9, 2024, the court ordered Nyashinski to produce details of the contract, including bank transaction records and royalty reports on the disputed song, to help settle the matter.

The Magistrate’s Court said that the sought contract documents were necessary and relevant for a fair determination of the suit.

Nyashinski, however, moved swiftly to the High Court, filing an appeal on August 21, 2024 against the magistrate’s decision.

He faulted the magistrate’s ruling, arguing that it failed to provide directions, safeguards and/or mechanisms to ensure that his personal data, financials, legal obligations and personal brand are protected from blackmail, extortion, exploitation, fraud and abuse.

The rapper insisted that releasing the documents would expose his trade secrets, putting him at a commercial disadvantage and exposing him to potential losses.

He also faulted the magistrate for incorrectly extending the scope of privity of contract by allowing the music producer to seek the documents he has no contractual rights to access, insisting that the contract document does not bear a material connection to the core issue of the case.

Further, the rapper argued that disclosing the contract and the amount he was paid would breach a non-disclosure clause between him and Tecno. He further insisted that the producer had not given the court a meaningful reason for demanding the contract because he was not a party to the agreement between Nyashinski and Tecno.

But the producer argued back, stating that availing the contract is crucial in determining the losses he has suffered as far as his 50 percent publishing rights of the song Wach Wach, which was heavily used in the promotion of the Tecno Camon 20, is concerned. Eliapenda also accused Nyashinski of contradiction, having initially told the Magistrate Court that there existed no such contract as he was paid in cash.

The High Court initially gave Nyashinski reprieve on the appeal, suspending the execution of the magistrate’s ruling pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

‘On careful consideration of the application, there is no doubt that the applicant (Nyashinski) stands to suffer loss if no orders are granted in the event the appeal succeeds. That is so because the fear the applicant has will be long realised with no possibility of reversal. Once the documents are released on discovery, then the process intimated to by the applicant will automatically set in motion. The application therefore is merited. There be a stay of execution of the ruling delivered by Hon Selina Muchungi pending determination of the appeal,’ the High Court ruled in 2025.

That reprieve has now been lifted.

Last Friday, the High Court dismissed Nyashinski’s appeal, effectively clearing the way for the disclosure of the documents and ending the temporary stay that had shielded the contract from disclosure.

‘The magistrate exercised proper discretion in finding that the 1st applicant (Nyashinski) and Tecno Mobile should produce the documents requested by the 1st respondent (Sam Are Eliapenda Jedidiah). The Magistrate’s finding was sound in law. Appeal dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent,’ the court ordered.

With the appeal dismissed, the matter now returns to the Magistrate’s Court, where Nyashinski will be required to produce the contract and related financial records.

The documents could reveal the finer details of the Tecno deal, including the financial value attached to the endorsement, before the copyright case proceeds to its substantive hearing and trial.

The bone of contention on the matter is largely pegged on the ownership rights of the song Wach Wach, which was used in a commercial advertisement.

According to the split sheet contract terms – which is a written agreement outlining how ownership and royalties are divided among collaborators on a song – Nyashinski owns 100 percent of the master rights to the song. However, the rapper and the producer split the publishing rights to the song, with each owning 50 percent.

Eliapenda argues that he is entitled to a percentage of the millions Nyashinski made from the endorsement deal, based on his publishing rights ownership of the song.

The producer maintains that Nyashinski cannot claim his rights are superior to his.

‘The rights of the appellant are not superior to the rights of any other persons; thus, the appellant cannot claim privacy after publicly disenfranchising me of millions of shillings through the copyright-infringing advertisement made together with him and the 2nd respondent and now claim privacy,’ he states in his court pleadings.

However, in his defence, Nyashinski maintains his deal with Tecno wasn’t a publishing deal as Eliapenda claims but rather one which included image rights, appearance, video/photo shoots, and social media association.

Nyashinski further argues that, through his company, GETA International, he signed a fair use agreement with Tecno for the use of the song Wach Wach, which he had every right to, as he owns 100 percent Master Rights and didn’t need any consent from the producer.

Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited faces attachment of its movable assets after the High Court ordered it to pay Infinity Industrial Park Limited Sh2.99 billion in special damages, escalating a dispute over financing for a planned 200-acre industrial park in Nairobi.

A warrant issued by Milimani High Court Deputy Registrar Stellah Sagwe on September 15 directs Moran Auctioneers to attach the bank’s movable and attachable property unless the amount is paid.

The warrant records the amount currently due as Sh2.99 billion, comprising the damages award, Sh1,500 in further costs and Sh1,500 in collection fees. Attached property may be sold by public auction after the required 15-day notice and proclamation process.

The auctioneer is expected to return the warrant to court by October 15, explaining how it was executed or why it was not. No seizure or sale of bank assets is established by the documents.

The warrant follows a decree in a 2024 commercial dispute pitting Infinity Industrial Park Limited against the bank, in which the court entered judgment for the amount, after Infinity withdrew most of its original prayers.

The legal dispute originates from a Sh1.97 billion bank loan facility advanced in 2019 to finance Infinity’s industrial park development.

The company alleged that delays in releasing charged land and related financing constraints disrupted the project, while the bank maintained that the borrower had fallen into arrears and that it was entitled to retain its security.

Infinity had initially sought orders stopping the bank from selling or interfering with its approximately 200-acre project land in Njiru, along Nairobi’s Eastern Bypass. It sought a Sh650 million facility for a second warehouse cluster or release of 15 acres to obtain financing elsewhere.

It also alleged delays in releasing title documents and land, and sought a payment moratorium, withdrawal of adverse credit-reference listings and damages.

Those prayers were withdrawn through a notice dated August 6, 2026, which the court allowed and adopted. The remaining claim produced the Sh2.99 billion judgment.

The dispute began with the Sh1.97 billion loan facility advanced by Bank of Baroda in 2019. The financing comprised a takeover loan from Equity Bank, a fresh overdraft and a new term loan, secured against several properties.

Infinity told the court that it was developing an industrial park and logistics project for small and medium-sized businesses on land with a projected 15-year development period and capacity for up to 1,000 enterprises. It was designed to provide industrial plots, warehouses and supporting infrastructure for SMEs.

Infinity says it made substantial repayments, including Sh500 million in principal and Sh800 million in interest by December 2023. It says it repeatedly sought restructuring and partial release of charged land to raise funds.

The company says it offered Sh250 million in December 2025 for release of 10 acres, but the proposal was rejected.

The case took a turn after the bank failed to file its defence within the prescribed period, leading to a default judgment in September 2025.

The court also dismissed the bank’s July 2026 attempt to set aside that judgment. The court found the bank had participated in proceedings but failed to comply with court directions.

“The failure to comply with the court’s timeline is not attributable to the absence of formal summons; it is simply a case of non-compliance with a court order,’ the court ruled.

The bank blamed its former lawyers for failing to communicate directions concerning its defence, while maintaining that its intended defence raised issues about the security, amount claimed and loan dispute.

The bank’s position in the wider dispute has been that Infinity defaulted and that it was entitled to exercise its rights as a secured lender.

The dispute has also expanded into a separate fight over the bank’s attempted appointment of joint administrators to Infinity in August, with the company challenging the move in court.

Kenya Power’s chief executive officer Joseph Siror’s annual pay nearly doubled to Sh46.02 million in the year ended June 2026, as the company rewarded its top executive for a third straight year of profits and higher dividends.

Mr Siror’s payslip was enhanced by a higher base salary and expense allowances, and a gratuity that was absent previously. He was paid a total of Sh24.14 million in the year ended June 2025, and Sh23.26 million in 2024.

Latest filings in Kenya Power’s annual report for 2026 show that Mr Siror’s base salary rose from Sh17.37 million to Sh23.07 million in the latest financial period, while his expense allowances increased to Sh10.52 million from Sh6.77 million a year earlier.

He was also handed a gratuity of Sh12.44 million this year, marking the first time he has received this type of payment since taking over as CEO in May 2023.

Mr Siror’s fatter pay reflects the company’s continued profitability under his tenure, which has been accompanied by progressively higher dividends for shareholders.

Kenya Power reported a 2.1 percent growth in net profit to Sh24.99 billion in the year ended June 2026, helped by an 8.6 percent increase in revenue from electricity sales to Sh238.24 billion.

However, a 5.5 percent increase in cost of sales to Sh152.7 billion and a 26.7 percent jump in operating expenses to Sh53.8 billion capped the growth in profit.

The company raised its dividend per share for the year by 50 percent, to Sh1.50 per unit from Sh1 in 2025, translating to an increase in total distribution from Sh1.95 billion to Sh2.93 billion.

In the year to June 2024, Kenya Power paid a dividend of Sh0.70 per share, or Sh1.37 billion, having turned around to a net profit of Sh30.08 billion from a net loss of Sh3.19 billion in 2023. The 2024 dividend ended a seven-year payout drought at the utility.

Overall, Kenya Power’s compensation to its board rose to Sh112.77 million from Sh58.87 million a year earlier. The increase was primarily driven by higher expense allowances of Sh51.9 million from Sh31.4 million previously across the board, in addition to Mr Siror’s improved remuneration.

Companies usually reward executives with higher pay or bonuses for hitting a number of milestones which can include profit growth, returns to shareholders or operational efficiencies.

However, while boards of listed firms set the executive pay, companies such as Kenya Power and KenGen where the government has a majority stake have another layer of approval from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC)-which controls public sector pay.

This means the likes of KenGen and Kenya Power tend to pay their executives less than their private sector peers that have similar levels of assets and profitability, for example listed banks.

The best paying lenders such as Co-operative Bank of Kenya and KCB Group, and other blue-chips such as Safaricom and EABL pay their top executives more than Sh100 million annually.

In the year ended December 2025, Co-op Bank chief executive officer Gideon Muriuki was paid Sh489.5 million, comprising a salary of Sh185.76 million and a bonus of Sh303.7 million, while KCB chief executive officer Paul Russo was paid a total of Sh285.3 million in salary, allowances and bonus. Safaricom paid its CEO Peter Ndegwa a total of Sh324.5 million in salary, bonus and other benefits in the 12 months to March 2026.

The High Court has faulted the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) for invalidating insurance policies held by customers of three insurers and placing them under statutory management without allowing affected policyholders to be heard.

The court ruled that the Commissioner of Insurance acted outside the statutory parameters when he issued a directive on March 10, 2026, affecting Trident Insurance Company Ltd, KUSCCO Mutual Assurance Ltd and Corporate Insurance Co. Ltd.

The IRA placed the insurers under statutory management in March over severe financial deterioration and a failure to meet mandatory solvency and capital requirements.

The court, however, said the decision contravened Articles 46 and 47 of the Constitution, which provide for consumer protection and fair administrative action.

‘The failure to comply with Article 47, by failing to inform affected parties, failing to afford them an opportunity to be heard, and failing to give reasons for the decision, negatively impacted the consumer rights of not only the petitioner but all those who were holding policies with the insurer,’ the court said.

The judge also found that the Commissioner had exceeded his powers by purporting to invalidate policies that were in force when the insurers were placed under statutory management.

The court said Section 67C(2)(i) of the Insurance Act allowed the Commissioner to appoint a statutory manager to take over the running of an insurer for purposes of stabilisation.

Under Section 67C(6), the statutory manager is required, within 12 months of appointment, to prepare and submit a report on the insurer’s financial position and management, including recommendations on whether it can be revived or should be liquidated.

‘A literal reading of the relevant provisions therefore discloses that under Section 67C(2)(i), the provision under which the notice was issued, the Commissioner was limited to appointing a statutory manager to take over the running of the insurance company for purposes of stabilisation,’ the judge said.

The court consequently quashed the notice to the extent that it purported to nullify or invalidate insurance policies that were lawfully in existence when the insurers were placed under statutory management.

It further declared that policies issued before March 10 remain valid for purposes of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) (Certificate of Insurance) Rules until a decision is made under Section 67C (7) of the Insurance Act.

The case was filed by city lawyer Christopher Njoroge, who challenged public notices issued by the regulator advising policyholders to immediately obtain alternative insurance covers.

Mr Njoroge told the court that he only became aware of the regulator’s action on the evening of March 13, when traffic police stopped him and alleged that he was driving without valid insurance.

He said he held a valid Trident policy running until October 18, 2026, and had not received prior communication from the insurer or regulator explaining why it had been cancelled.

Mr Njoroge argued that the regulator had interfered with private contracts between insurers and policyholders and violated his constitutional rights to property, consumer protection and fair administrative action.

He also argued that the IRA had failed in its duty to protect policyholders by allowing the insurers to continue collecting premiums while subsequently directing customers to obtain alternative cover.

The petitioner sought conservatory orders protecting policies issued before March 10, as well as general damages for alleged violations of his rights.

The IRA opposed the petition, saying statutory management had been lawfully invoked under Section 67C(2)(i) because of persistent weaknesses in the insurers’ solvency, governance, capital adequacy, reinsurance arrangements and risk management.

The regulator said statutory management suspends ordinary management, cancels operating licences and bars insurers from entering into new contracts.

It argued that individual notification of policyholders was impractical and that early disclosure of the insurers’ financial difficulties could have triggered a run on their assets, worsening losses for policyholders.

The IRA also relied on statutory safeguards, including moratoriums and compensation through the Policyholders Compensation Fund.

The regulator argued that contracts were frustrated by insolvency rather than arbitrarily cancelled and that policyholders became creditors entitled to lodge claims with statutory managers or liquidators.

IRA maintained that recognising policies issued by insolvent insurers would expose accident victims to uncompensated losses and undermine its statutory mandate.

But the court said the policies issued before March 10 cannot be treated as invalid merely based on the directive, pending the statutory process and any decision made under Section 67C(7).

“It would be inimical both to the Constitution and to the Act if their implementation were to leave insured persons in no better position than they were prior to the amendments and the promulgation of the Constitution,’ the court said.

‘Carl Grindan’, the person behind QVSE, the doomed investment scheme that froze millions of shillings of Kenyans’ cash, also ran a similar scheme in Kenya last year, it has emerged.

Grindan ran the PCEX scheme under the Global Investment Group (GIG) banner, similar to QVSE. It also collapsed similarly, leaving Kenyans’ money trapped on the platform.

Victims of PCEX say they were lured into the scheme in early 2025 through friends, colleagues and family members.

Like QVSE, PCEX relied on copy trading, where an investor automatically mirrors the trades of another, usually more experienced, trader.

The method allows beginners to participate in financial markets without deep knowledge of chart reading or hours of research.

Users were told to deposit $500 (about Sh65,000) into their PCEX accounts, after which Grindan shared trading signals on a GIG Telegram group. Investors had a five-minute window to execute each signal before it expired, similar to the signals later sent through QVSE’s BonChat platform.

For PCEX, however, Grindan, whom followers also referred to as ‘Prof Carl’, sent four signals a day. Similar to QVSE, investors cashed out their profits through the cryptocurrency exchange platform Binance.

Grindan communicated with PCEX investors through Telegram, rather than BonChat, and used the same name and photograph he still uses now – that of a white, middle-aged Caucasian man in a dark grey plaid blazer and white Oxford shirt on his BonChat profile.

The Business Daily has since conducted a reverse search of the photograph, which showed it was first uploaded on the internet in September 2021 to a Norway-based photographer’s portfolio alongside five other shots of the model.

A similar picture, which appears to be from the same shoot, is currently the LinkedIn profile picture of a business executive working for a major Norwegian automotive group headquartered in Oslo.

On search engines such as Google, queries of the name ‘Carl Grindan’ only bring up recent QVSE-related discussions online.

PCEX also operated on recruiting more people. In an April 2025 Telegram message to a Kenyan investor who had joined PCEX on the introduction of a friend, Grindan said: ‘Your introducer has also reaped very rich profits here in the team. I hope you can learn from him how to build a team to increase your own profits.’

‘When you agree to our investment project, I hope you will create your own team as soon as possible so that you can win at the starting line and let your friends feel the money-making opportunities provided by our team.’

According to a Telegram message shared with a new Kenyan investor and obtained by the Business Daily, if a new member’s investment principal exceeded 30 percent of the referrer’s funds, they enjoyed bonus signal transactions, boosting their account holdings.

PCEX was also in South Sudan, Nigeria, and Bahrain in the UAE, according to victim accounts from these countries shared on social media.

‘The website is super vague about any real company info, and I noticed it’s basically just a template with flashy promises,’ a user said on the social media site Reddit.

‘Another thing I found was that they operate under multiple domains, which is sketchy. I previously looked into pcextrade.pro, and it had all the classic red flags-no transparency, unrealistic returns, and the whole thing looks like it’s just copy-pasted from other scam sites. Using multiple domains is a common trick to dodge detection once one gets blacklisted.’

But the promise of quick profits continued to attract investors. Some were able to cash out their principal after profits grew.

‘I followed signal 4 times a day, and the money doubled in a month. That’s why I’m able to withdraw my initial modal before anything happens,’ another Reddit user wrote.

‘What’s left in there is all just profit. I’m planning to let the money grow for a bit until I can afford a car in cash. But I’m so worried if they’re suddenly gone and I won’t be able to withdraw more.’

PCEX initially announced a temporary closure on April 16, 2025, citing internal issues and pending regulatory processes.

Grindan told investors they could not withdraw their cash until January 2026, when a ‘review of all funds is completed’.

‘There is no need to treat this issue with a speculative mentality and negativity… we will screen those who really believe in us to join the new projects. We will only lead those who trust us to make money,’ Grindan said in a Telegram message.

That day, the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) gave a warning on X, saying PCEX was operating in Kenya illegally.

‘Kindly note that we have not approved or licensed CBEX/PCEX,’ the regulator said in response to a social media query.

The CMA was referencing CBEX, another cryptocurrency and forex trading platform that, in April 2025, saw users lose their fortunes after their accounts were emptied.

The platform had attracted Kenyans, Nigerians and Egyptians with promises of AI-powered profits, referral bonuses and easy withdrawals, including returns of up to 30 percent in 30 days.

The following day, Grindan texted investors on Telegram to say PCEX’s services, including withdrawals and fund transfers to Binance, would resume on January 1, 2026.

In the meantime, he directed investors to another site called EXZZ and told people to continue depositing $500 as they awaited withdrawals on the PCEX platform. He termed it his way of making up to his investors for the revenue cuts.

At the time, he told investors in the Telegram group that there were seven months to January 1, 2026, and during this waiting period, they should continue investing ‘in order to avoid anyone’s income reduction in the PCEX review period’.

A Kenyan user later texted Grindan, referring to him as ‘Fake Professor’, to express his frustration over the money freeze. ‘I am at home trying to come to terms with the loss you made me incur,’ the investor said.

In response, Grindan sent a direct message saying: ‘I understand your feelings very well, but it doesn’t matter; you can choose not to believe us. And wait patiently for PCEX’s fund review. Once PCEX completes the fund review, you can withdraw all your funds. Global Group will provide financial security for everyone.’

In January this year, the company did not reopen, and people lost their money.

‘The platform has not reopened, and no official communication has been issued to clarify the delay or provide a new timeline,’ one victim wrote on Facebook on January 4, 2026.

One GIG Telegram group seen by the Business Daily shows it has more than 62,900 members. It is not clear if they are all Kenyans. Grindan has since blocked members from sending messages to the group.

His profiles show he has not logged into the Telegram accounts for months.

Despite the collapse of PCEX, GIG held a conference at what appears to be a large hall to celebrate its ‘first anniversary’ in Kenya in May this year, according to videos shared on TikTok.

It was around this period that the operation returned with QVSE. Grindan again used local agents to recruit teachers, small-scale traders, mid-level professionals and boda-boda operators into the scheme.

Investors deposited money into their QVSE accounts and waited for trading signals from ‘Prof Carl’, who messaged them on BonChat.

Those with a $500 principal earned $6 (Sh777) per trade, while investors who deposited $1,000 (Sh130,000) earned $12 (Sh1,553). This meant one could make at least Sh1,553 a day from the two trading sessions.

Investors were told they were trading stocks from American tech giants such as Tesla and Apple.

But unlike PCEX, Grindan sent two signals a day and used BonChat, which was more restricted compared to WhatsApp and Telegram. Investors could not take screenshots of group or one-on-one conversations on the platform, for instance.

Grindan did not interact with investors over calls. They only messaged him directly in case of issues with their QVSE accounts.

Multiple investors the Business Daily spoke to said that any comments by investors had to be approved by Grindan before they appeared on the main group.

Months later, the collapse of QVSE would follow a pattern similar to PCEX. On September 5, Grindan froze all accounts, accusing investors of creating multiple accounts to increase their trading limits.

He told members they needed to deposit another Sh65,000 or Sh129,000 to verify their accounts.

The CMA would, on September 12, issue another warning that QVSE was not licensed to operate in Kenya, but Grindan rejected the regulator’s statement and told investors to continue putting in money to unfreeze their accounts.

While he had initially promised investors that they would begin withdrawing their balances from September 12 if they deposited more cash, he pushed the deadline by a week to give investors more time to put in money.

‘I am always with you-I have never left, and I will never disappear!’ he said in a September 13 message on BonChat. ‘I will fully assist everyone through the withdrawal queue and continue leading everyone to create greater glory in the US stock market.’

State corporations and parastatals are struggling to open job opportunities for the country’s youthful population, hurting efforts to contain an unemployment crisis that mainly impacts the youth.

This is based on a review of the staffing composition at the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK), National Lands Commission (NLC), Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) and Public Service Commission (PSC) that revealed most of their employees are aged 50 years and above.

Disclosures by the National Assembly Committee on National Cohesion and Equal Opportunity show that 35 percent of staff at PSC and CBK are aged above 50 years.

A paltry 6.2 percent of the staff, or 81 employees at CBK, are aged between 21 and 30 years, while at AFA, 15.7 percent (75 workers) are aged between 21 and 30 years. Some 17 percent of PSC staff (46) are aged 35 years and below; while at NLC, those below 30 years make up 19 percent of the workforce (167).

Youth unemployment continues to be a nightmare for Kenya, with the United Nations warning that this is a ticking time bomb and could, in the long term, pose a serious security threat.

‘The age composition across the institutions is skewed towards older age groups. CBK and PSC have a significant proportion of staff within the 51 to 60 age bracket, while AFA and NLC show concentration within the 30 to 50 age range, with fewer employees in the younger age categories,’ the committee says in the report tabled in Parliament on August 13, 2026.

The report shows that CBK had the highest staff count of the four with 1,311 employees, followed by NLC at 840, AFA with 477 staff and PSC at 273.

Some 2.83 million Kenyan youth are jobless and not in school, the highest in the East African region ahead of 1.46 million in Tanzania, 1.17 million in Uganda, and Rwanda (735,500), according to a report by the International Labour Organization.

Lack of opportunities in the public service highlights Kenya’s struggles in creating jobs to absorb the high number of young Kenyans graduating from universities and colleges.

Kenya created 75,000 formal jobs in 2024, a drop from the 122,900 the previous year, compared to the 286, 695 university and college graduates every year.

Some of the factors cited for the dismal employment of youth at the agencies include lack of deliberate hiring of young talent to succeed those who exit, inadequate budgets, and resistance to diversify employee composition based on age.

The Parliamentary committee says that all public entities should develop and implement structured youth recruitment and internship programmes to enhance the rate of hiring youthful Kenyans and strengthen succession planning.

For example, the government has since 2019 been employing graduates on the Public Service Internship Programme (PSIP) across ministries, departments and agencies for a year with a monthly stipend of Sh25,000.

There have been a number of unsuccessful attempts in the past to have the interns on the PSIP be given permanent and pensionable jobs to replace the retiring civil servants.

CBK, PSC, AFA and NLC were chosen for the survey due to the need to examine diversity within entities that perform national governance, regulatory and polic? setting functions and which operate highly structured and centralised human resource systems.

‘These institutions play a critical role in shaping public sector employment standards and are therefore strategically positioned to demonstrate compliance with Constitutional principles on equality, inclusivity and representation,’ the Parliamentary committee added.

Tourism levy collections fell Sh1 billion short of target in the year to June after regulations to bring Airbnb rentals, homestays and villas into the tax system failed to take effect.

The Tourism Fund collected Sh5.646 billion against a Sh6.65 billion target in the 2025/26 financial year, according to data submitted to the State Department for Tourism.

The Sh1.004 billion shortfall was the largest recorded in recent years and marked a significant deterioration from the previous financial year, 2024/25, when collections missed the Sh5.5 billion target by Sh400 million.

The agency attributed the shortfall to the failure to gazette regulations that would have expanded levy collection to short-term accommodation operators.

‘The Fund had anticipated having regulations that would enable collection of levies from Airbnbs, homestays and villas during the financial year, but the same were not gazetted, hence the shortfall,’ the report says.

The disclosure highlights the growing challenge of capturing Kenya’s expanding short-term rental market under a levy system largely designed around conventional hotels and other licensed tourism establishments.

It also exposes differences over whether new regulations are needed before the levy can be collected from digital platforms.

Tourism Fund chairperson Samson Some said in January that there was no legal obstacle to collecting the charge from digital platforms, arguing that the bigger challenge was identifying and tracking short-term rental operators.

‘There is no legal gap,’ Mr Some said in an interview. ‘The systems we had were built for traditional hotels, restaurants and bars. What has changed is the entry of digital platforms and short-term rentals, which the old systems were not designed to capture.’

Under the tourism law, regulated hotels, restaurants and other licensed tourism establishments pay a 2 percent tourism levy on gross sales.

The levy is payable monthly, with failure to remit by the 10th of the following month attracting a Sh5,000 fine and a three per cent penalty on the outstanding amount for every month it remains unpaid.

Short-term rentals have complicated enforcement, particularly where individual operators manage multiple properties without operating from conventional hotel premises.

‘You may have someone running 10 units on one floor of a residential block while the rest of the building is private housing,’ Mr Some said. ‘Without the right digital system, you may not even identify the operator, let alone enforce levy collection.’

The latest figures show how the revenue gap has emerged as annual targets have increased.

Collections exceeded the target by Sh1.12 billion in 2021/22, when Sh2.81 billion was raised against a Sh1.69 billion target.

The surplus narrowed to Sh690 million in 2022/23, with collections of Sh3.9 billion against a Sh3.21 billion target, before falling to about Sh150 million in 2023/24.

Collections then dropped below target in 2024/25, when Sh5.1 billion was raised against a target of Sh5.5 billion, leaving a Sh400 million gap.

Although collections rose by Sh546 million last year, the annual target increased by Sh1.15 billion, meaning revenue growth was insufficient to match the higher expectations.

The stalled expansion of the levy base comes as the tourism industry increasingly includes accommodation booked outside traditional hotels, raising the stakes for the authorities to find a workable collection mechanism.

Mr Some said the proposed solution is to shift collection towards digital transactions rather than relying on physical identification and follow-up of individual operators.

Under the proposed model, the levy would be deducted when a guest makes a booking, with the platform remitting the amount directly to the agency.

‘If $100 (about Sh12,962) is collected from a guest, a percentage is remitted directly through the system,’ Mr Some said. ‘That way, we don’t have to chase operators to their residences or follow properties that keep shifting locations. The levy is collected at source.’

The approach would move enforcement from individual properties to booking platforms, potentially giving authorities access to transactions that are difficult to identify through conventional inspections.

Other countries have adopted similar approaches. Rwanda requires accommodation providers, including short-term rental operators using platforms such as Airbnb, to pay tourism tax based on guest payments.

South Africa has also pursued a data-driven approach in which platforms can provide authorities with transaction information, including host identities, earnings, property addresses and rental periods.

Renowned Kenyan filmmaker David Tosh Gitonga has been slapped with a Sh7,000 costs bill for wasting the court’s time as his woes over a Sh1.1 million debt arising from a Netflix-backed film project deepen.

Last month, Tosh, as he is popularly known, was ordered to pay a total of Sh1.1 million to German filmmaker Christian Kramer after losing an appeal at the High Court over a WhatsApp agreement that helped him secure funding from Netflix for his Volume series, which is available on the streaming platform.

Following the failed appeal, Tosh moved to the Small Claims Court, seeking permission to settle the Sh1.1 million debt in monthly instalments of Sh10,000 instead of one lump sum.

The filmmaker told the court that he was facing severe financial difficulties that had left him unable to settle the debt in a lump sum. He attributed his financial position to diminished business operations and prevailing economic conditions.

But Kramer opposed the application, accusing Tosh of ‘being economical with the truth’.

The German editor told the Small Claims Court that Tosh had released a new film and a television series that had recently premiered on Citizen TV, contradicting his claims of financial hardship.

In considering the submissions by both parties, Adjudicator Stella Wanjiru faulted Tosh for failing to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that he was unable to settle the debt in full.

‘My view is, an applicant who wishes a court to exercise its discretion and order payment of a decretal sum by way of installments must be very candid with the court. Such an applicant must present to the court sufficient material to show that he/she is a person of no means, that whatever income she/he has is lawfully committed elsewhere,’ the adjudicator stated.

‘The duty of the applicant (Tosh) therefore was to demonstrate that he was not in a position to settle the decree in a lump sum. The applicant did not demonstrate their monthly income, did not give their assets and liabilities. The applicant asked the court to allow payment in instalments because they were facing financial difficulties or their financial situation; however, nothing was placed on record to support this assertion,’ she added.

The court subsequently dismissed Tosh’s pleading and ordered him to pay Sh7,000 in costs, finding that he had failed to meet the threshold required for the court to exercise its discretion.

‘In my considered opinion, the applicant has not met the threshold enough for the court to exercise its discretion, the upshot of which is that the application is dismissed with costs of Sh7,000,’ the adjudicator stated.

Tosh’s legal troubles trace back to a WhatsApp conversation sometime between 2022 and 2023, when he engaged Kramer to provide services that helped him secure undisclosed Netflix funding for his series Volume. The series would later earn three nominations at the prestigious Zanzibar International Film Festival in 2024.

A payment dispute subsequently arose between the two filmmakers, with Kramer, who worked on the Volume pilot, accusing Tosh of refusing to honour their agreement.

The two had agreed that Kramer would be paid pound 4,000 (Sh678,403) for his work, prompting him to move to the Small Claims Court in 2023 to recover the money.

At the Small Claims Court, Tosh disputed Kramer’s claim, arguing that there was no formal written contract between them that could be considered legally binding or sufficient to compel him to make the payment.

The court, however, ruled in Kramer’s favour, finding that the WhatsApp exchanges between the two filmmakers amounted to a legally binding agreement.

Unhappy with the decision, Tosh appealed to the High Court, arguing, among other things, that the lower court had erred in treating their WhatsApp exchanges as a contract.

He further argued that the adjudicator had ignored and/or failed to consider his testimony and evidence, instead placing reliance on the evidence and material presented by Kramer, resulting in what he described as a manifestly unfair decision.

The filmmaker maintained that the lower court had erroneously inferred a contractual relationship from assumptions and informal interactions, failing to appreciate that there was no formal agreement, written correspondence or credible testimony evidencing an offer and subsequent acceptance.

According to Tosh, the work submitted by Kramer consisted merely of voluntary samples provided for vetting in what was effectively an interview-like scenario, with no mutual intention to create legal relations.

In his view, the lower court had unjustly converted a prospective employment evaluation into a billable commercial transaction, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Kramer opposed the appeal, maintaining that the trial court had correctly found a valid and binding contract between the parties, established through phone calls, WhatsApp chats and the subsequent performance and conduct of the two filmmakers.

The German film editor maintained that after he successfully edited and delivered the Volume trailer, which Tosh subsequently used to secure funding from Netflix, the Kenyan filmmaker acted deceitfully by awarding the promised substantive editing work to other local editors behind his back and failing to pay him at the agreed market rate.

Kramer further argued that a valid contract can be formed electronically without traditional written formalities, and that an exchange of WhatsApp messages can constitute a concluded and binding agreement.

After reviewing the pleadings and evidence, the High Court found that the adjudicator had correctly exercised her discretion and that Tosh had failed to demonstrate how the lower court had erred in its decision. The High Court consequently upheld the Small Claims Court’s judgment, effectively bringing the three-year legal battle to an end and leaving Tosh liable for Sh1.1 million.

The amount comprised Kramer’s compensation, calculated with interest at the court’s prescribed rate, as well as Sh200,000 in auctioneers’ fees.

The dispute had already resulted in an auctioneer’s intervention in October 2024, when Interfield Auctioneers stormed Primary Pictures’ offices and proclaimed assets valued at Sh985,884 in an attempt to recover Kramer’s debt.

At the time, the outstanding amount had risen to Sh778,084 following Tosh’s failure to honour the Small Claims Court judgment delivered in June 2024, which ordered him to pay Kramer.

Tosh subsequently moved to the High Court in November 2024, challenging the lower court’s decision. He argued that he had not been properly heard and maintained that there was no legally binding contract between him and Kramer.

As the appeal proceeded, the High Court ordered Tosh to deposit Sh400,000 with the court pending the hearing and determination of the matter. He ultimately lost the appeal last month, with the High Court noting that its judgment was final, leaving Tosh with no further avenue of appeal and an obligation to settle the Sh1.1 million debt.

Tosh, widely regarded as one of Kenya’s prominent filmmakers, shot into the limelight in 2012 for his work on Nairobi Half Life, a film drama that made history as the first Kenyan film to be selected for consideration at the 85th Academy Awards.

Over the years, Gitonga has built an extensive film portfolio, producing and directing several notable productions, including The Wedding Planner and The First Grader, among others.

His disputed Volume series later earned three nominations at the Zanzibar International Film Festival in 2024.

The hold has found further support from the continued exchange rate stability as the Kenyan shilling remains largely unchanged against the US dollar, where it has traded in a narrow-bound range of between 129 and 130 units since the onset of the Middle East crisis.

This is even as Kenya’s official foreign currency reserves come under pressure from an increased fuel import bill and reduced diaspora remittances.

Lending to businesses and households (private sector lending) has also remained robust, climbing back to double-digit levels in the months of June and July 2026 for the first time since February 2024.

The average lending rate by commercial banks stood at 14.3 percent in July, falling from 14.4 percent in June and 17.2 percent in November 2025.

The ease in lending rates has continued despite the pause in monetary policy, revealing the continued transmission of previous cuts into the economy.

The apex bank has credited the new loan-pricing and monetary policy framework for bringing down lending costs.

CBK, however, acknowledges that banks were initially resistant to the changes as they bickered over the choice to adopt the CBR or the Kesonia as the benchmark for pricing loans.

Most banks in the end favoured the CBR over Kesonia, but both rates have since converged as the CBK exercises its other open market operations tool to prop liquidity in the interbank market, keeping the overnight lending rate close to the CBR.

The CBK has an established interest rate corridor where the interbank rate, or Kesonia, hovers at no more than 0.5 percentage points above or below the CBR.

Both the CBR and Kesonia are currently tied at the hip at 8.75 percent.

‘Our original proposal was to have the CBR as the benchmark, but banks complained, saying that we were trying to control interest rates. We allowed them to do so, but today the interbank rate is the same as the policy rate. We are okay with whichever benchmark a bank chooses because this framework has ensured that both the policy rate and Kesonia move in tandem,’ Thugge added.

Kenyan architecture is undergoing a rapid digital revolution. From Nairobi’s design hubs to the coast, artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how spaces are conceived, designed and built.

Specialised parametric software is no longer a futuristic novelty but an active participant in modern Kenyan design studios.

Yet as AI becomes embedded in the industry, it raises a critical question: Will it dilute the rich cultural fabric of Kenyan architecture into generic glass boxes, or catalyse localised, sustainable innovation?

The main concern is architectural homogenisation. Kenya’s architectural history is deeply rooted in local traditions, from coastal Swahili designs to traditional layouts centred on community life. There is a valid fear that reliance on global AI models, largely trained on Western data, could produce designs detached from the Kenyan context.

However, creativity need not be a zero-sum contest between humans and machines. AI thrives on the prompts it receives. Guided by a culturally conscious architect, it can analyse historical data, local material properties and climatic conditions to generate distinctive concepts.

Rather than killing creativity, AI can serve as a tireless brainstorming partner, suggesting forms and material combinations a designer might not initially consider. Ultimately, architectural uniqueness will depend on the intent and critical judgement of the human architect.

For Kenya to adopt AI without compromising professional integrity, responsible integration is essential.

Regulatory bodies such as the Board of Registration of Architects and Quantity Surveyors and the Architectural Association of Kenya should establish ethical guidelines, ensuring AI remains a tool for augmentation rather than a substitute for professional judgment.

Architectural education must also evolve. Universities should teach students to critically think, curate and direct AI tools while emphasising local materials such as bamboo, earth blocks and coral stone.

Kenya’s architecture industry can harness AI to improve structural efficiency and reduce material waste.

By embracing technology critically while keeping culture, sustainability and human empathy at the centre, Kenyan architects can build a future that is technologically advanced and authentically African.