Category: Business Daily

There is a particular kind of chaos that only urban planners fully appreciate. It is not the dramatic chaos of a building collapse, though Nairobi has had those too. It is the slow, grinding chaos of a city where every individual decision makes perfect economic sense and the collective outcome is a catastrophe. Welcome to Westlands.

Westlands was designed as a low-rise residential neighbourhood, a leafy address for the upper middle class, with controlled commercial activity at its edges. Today, 20-to-30-storey towers jostle for airspace above what were once single-family plots.

City Hall confirmed in February 2026 that all seven of Westlands’ original sub-estates, among them Spring Valley, Parklands, Loresho, and Rhapta, were planned as residential zones. The same City Hall has spent decades issuing permits that contradict that plan entirely.

In March 2026, residents of Brookside Estate watched two steel scaffolding poles, each five metres long, fall forty metres from a 24-storey building under construction in a zone capped at four storeys.

That building had received both a county permit and a Nema environmental licence, neither of which required the developer to first obtain a change-of-use approval. In Nairobi, the paperwork often arrives before the logic.

The roots of this disorder run deep. Nairobi’s 1973 Metropolitan Growth Strategy expired in 2000. For the next 14 years, a city growing at over four percent annually, from roughly one million people in 1973 to more than three million by 2009, operated without a binding spatial framework. Developers filled the vacuum. The result was not a city built in silos so much as a city built in spite of itself.

NIUPLAN, the Nairobi Integrated Urban Development Master Plan, was completed in 2014 with support from Japan’s International Cooperation Agency and approved by the government in 2016. It was the city’s fourth master plan.

It is also severely under-implemented. City Hall currently lacks clear rules for issuing building permits, a gap that opened when the repeal of the Physical Planning Act rendered the 2004 zoning guidelines obsolete. The plan exists. The enforcement does not.

The infrastructure absorbs the consequences. Westlands’ water supply, sewerage, stormwater drainage, and roads were all designed for a residential neighbourhood. City Hall’s own February 2026 disclosure acknowledged that construction had gone far beyond the area’s original purpose, straining every system it relies on.

When a neighbourhood planned for bungalows starts hosting office towers, the roads do not magically widen and the pipes do not deepen. Everything fails more slowly than the buildings rise.

This is the central problem with designing in silos. An architect approves a tower. An environmental authority issues a licence. A county officer signs a permit. Nobody asks whether the pipes can handle three hundred additional units, or whether the access road can absorb the traffic.

The Physical and Land Use Planning Act of 2019 requires counties to gazette their zoning plans, a directive the Court of Appeal had to reinforce in a September 2025 ruling, because Nairobi City County still had not done it. Six years after the law passed.

Nairobi’s metro population crossed five million in 2023 and grows at roughly four percent annually, adding the equivalent of a mid-sized Kenyan town every year.A city growing that fast needs planning that runs ahead of the crane, not behind it.

What Nairobi has instead is a system where residents in Kilimani, Lavington, and Parklands go to court to stop buildings that block their sunlight, because the permits arrived before any coherent neighbourhood plan did.

City Hall has now advertised a tender for a Local Physical and Land Use Development Plan for Westlands. Better late than never, though one suspects the developers who built 24 storeys in a four-storey zone will find a way to be consulted.

The deeper lesson is not about Westlands. It is about what happens when a capital city treats planning as an afterthought to investment.

Nairobi generates a big share of Kenya’s GDP. It deserves infrastructure designed to carry that weight, not regulations written for a city one-twentieth its size.

There is a moment every manufacturer in Kenya knows well. It comes late at night, when the factory premises is still, and you are alone with your numbers: forget the sales figures, but the full, honest picture: payroll, licences, levies, compliance fees.

Kenya targets manufacturing at 20 percent of GDP by 2030, yet it stands at 7.3 percent today, down from over 11 percent a decade ago. Behind this decline are scaled-down factories, paused investments and unrealised expansion. Despite various initiatives to streamline the regulatory environment in Kenya, the issues persist and constrain industry growth.

To run a manufacturing business in Kenya today is to be perpetually compliant – not in a simple, once-a-year sense, but in a multi-agency, multi-fee, multi-inspection cycle. In some sectors, this means managing upwards of 50 licences. In pharmaceuticals, this number rises to 57.

The National Environment Management Authority (Nema) requires approvals on effluent discharge, while the Directorate of Occupational Safety and Health Services (DOSHS) mandates audits on fire safety, occupational health, risk assessments, first aid training and fire marshal certification: often conducted separately, sometimes by the same officers, and billed as different engagements.

Counties layer on their own requirements: business permits, vehicle branding fees at entry points, and separate parking fees for delivery vehicles.

Policy pressure

Beyond the structural weight, two measures currently facing manufacturers capture the deeper problem in how policy is landing on the ground.

First is the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework. Manufacturers are not resisting environmental accountability and have invested heavily in circular economy systems: funding recovery schemes, participating in producer responsibility organisations (PROs), and working with government to reduce waste.

The Sh150 per item levy reads clearly on paper, but industrial inputs do not move in neat units. They arrive in bulk, in standard packaging used globally for safety and efficiency.

When that reality meets a per-item charge, costs compound in ways that are not obvious at first glance, particularly when stacked on top of existing PRO obligations manufacturers are already meeting.

In some sectors, the effect is already showing up as a five to six percent increase in production costs. In beverages, projections point to cost increases of up to 70 percent under the current structure.

At that scale, it stops feeling like environmental reform and starts feeling like a fundamental disruption of production economics.

The second is the Standards Levy Order, which has raised the levy ceiling to between Sh4 million and Sh6 million, up from Sh400,000 annually.

Take Sh4 million and spread it across the year: it comes to roughly Sh11,000 every single day.

Daily cost

Every day the factory is running, whether production is high or low, whether sales are strong or weak, during public holidays, when power is out, when raw materials are held at the port, when a VAT refund is still pending, that cost is accumulating.

Put differently, that is the daily wage equivalent of 11 casual workers, hired not for production, not for growth, but purely for compliance.

For manufacturers, this erodes competitiveness in markets already flooded with cheaper imports. For smaller firms, the question is more immediate: where does that money come from?

These sit alongside rising statutory deductions, volatile input prices and a domestic market where purchasing power is already stretched. Across counties, fees continue to vary, often without clear pricing frameworks or justification.

For the manufacturer on the ground, it is not one cost that defines the environment, but the accumulation.

Beyond Kenya’s borders, the environment offers little relief. Supply chains are shifting, trade tensions are rising, and protectionism is increasing. Shipping routes remain disrupted and energy prices are unpredictable.

Competitive gap

These are pressures no single manufacturer can control, which is why the domestic environment matters. While external shocks are expected, the internal framework should offer stability to plan around. Right now, that assurance is not there. Costs are being layered faster than businesses can adjust.

Other countries are moving differently. Rwanda has streamlined licensing frameworks and reduced regulatory duplication. Egypt has taken deliberate steps to cap compliance costs and provide long-term policy clarity to investors.

As Kenya constrains the ability of local industries to compete, other countries are strengthening theirs, resulting in lost markets and capital flight.

Kenya has the fundamentals to compete: a strategic location, a skilled workforce and a strong industrial base. But competitiveness is not built on potential alone.

Manufacturing is a multiplier: when it grows, it drives jobs, exports and value chains; when it stalls, the effects ripple across sectors and into the wider economy.

Some of this is within our control. Review how EPR is being applied and align it with how supply chains function. Draw a clear boundary between EPR charges and existing PRO obligations to eliminate duplication.

Reconsider the scale and structure of the standards levy and anchor it in a phased, predictable framework.

More broadly, reduce duplication across regulatory agencies, harmonise national and county requirements and restore predictability to how policy is introduced.

Hard question

It is time we confront how these levies and regulatory layers are playing out in real businesses. Are these levies and charges truly aligned with the services they support?

Our commitments under the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement require that agency fees are commensurate with services provided and not serve as revenue streams.

These costs do not disappear. They move into the price of goods. They lead to fewer jobs and reduced investment.

Ultimately, the ripple effect lands on mwananchi, the very person these systems are meant to protect.

If the cost of local production keeps rising, businesses hesitate to expand, and competitiveness declines, what exactly are we protecting?

Private credit has grown in prominence since the 2009 financial crisis that prompted banks to tighten lending standards.

Following recent high-profile defaults in the US – notably Tricolor Holdings and First Brands – combined with concerns over company valuations, private credit has come under intense scrutiny. Many investors and analysts now view this upheaval as early warning signs of the next financial crisis.

Private credit can be broadly defined as lending that takes place outside of the traditional banking system. It includes elements such as trade financing, venture capital, infrastructure financing, and development finance institutions (DFIs). Private credit is more commonly associated with lending directly to medium-sized companies to facilitate growth.

How big is private credit?

As an asset class, private credit is valued at Sh219.6 trillion (Sh1.7 trillion) globally. However, direct lending in Africa is relatively small, with assets under management estimated at Sh258.3 billion ($2 billion).

While there is no specific estimate of the value of private credit in Kenya, direct lending to upcoming and mid-sized companies is dominated by institutional investors such as venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE) firms, as well as development finance institutions.

In contrast to private lending in advanced economies, where individual investors have invested in private credit funds, retail investor exposure to private credit in Kenya is negligible.

Why do start-ups, mid-sized companies favour private credit over bank credit/equity funding?

Traditional bank financing is often out of reach for start-ups and mid-sized companies, which, in most cases, have yet to turn a profit and lack collateral. This forces such entities to seek alternative sources of funding, including private credit.

Founders and business owners prefer to maintain control of their enterprises and will therefore avoid parting with equity, which often involves giving up board seats and voting rights. This effectively hands control from founders to funders.

Private debt is therefore preferred as it offers access to ‘patient capital’ without sacrificing control, as would be the case with equity investments.

What are the lending margins involved in private credit?

While the terms of private debt are usually confidential, direct lending to firms attracts a margin of between nine and 12 percent for dollar-denominated facilities.

These margins can reach 15 percent at the riskier end of the market. Owners of private debt receive periodic payments from the recipient of the funding, similar to conventional bond coupons.

However, at the recoupment of the principal amount, investors will most likely receive enhanced reimbursement, including payment in kind (PIK), which ranges from two to three percent of revenues or pre-tax profits achieved.

Where are concerns on private credit coming from?

The fear that advanced AI could disrupt enterprises in advanced economies has caused investors to become anxious, as they believe that many companies could go out of business and default on loans, some of which are held as private credit.

The recent collapse of US entities First Brands and Tricolor Holdings, which are described as subprime borrowers with private loans, has only served to exacerbate these concerns.

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, has warned that there could be ‘cockroaches’ in the US economy – suggesting that the two defaults could signal more to come. In context, seeing one cockroach usually suggests that there are more in the vicinity.

How have investors in private credit reacted?

Although no major lenders have collapsed and a wave of defaults has not materialised, investors have been pushing to get their money back. This has resulted in a liquidity mismatch for the asset class.

Some of the leading names in private credit have restricted investors’ ability to withdraw funds, although limits on withdrawals are standard practice for preventing a run on the bank. Firms such as Blue Owl Capital have been forced to close one of their retail-focused funds after investors became alarmed and demanded refunds.

What are the potential public and far-reaching consequences of a crisis in private credit?

Private creditors may be considered shadow banks, issuing loans on terms known only to those involved. However, minimal exposure among lenders providing capital to private credit providers could result in tighter lending across the financial industry.

Insurance firms with exposure could raise premiums, while underfunded pensions could result in a wider crisis.

How would the unravelling of private credit hit closer to home?

Experts expect private credit markets in economies like Kenya to be largely sheltered from the shocks projected in advanced economies. The region, for instance, features fewer funds that are largely institutional and anchored by development finance institutions (DFIs).

Private credit funding is also seen as supporting real economic growth in the region by supporting enterprises in sectors like manufacturing, green energy and electric mobility.

In sharp contrast, private credit in advanced economies like the US is seen backing more speculative opportunities like artificial intelligence, which are deemed riskier.

Private debt in Africa and Kenya is also often backed by significant equity cushions and other collaterals minimising risks for investors in the eventuality of an implosion.

The effect of an implosion on private credit inflows from abroad would, however, remain to be seen.

On paper, divorce marks the end of a marriage, but in reality, it is usually the start of a long and complicated financial separation. For instance, couples are finding themselves bound together by a mortgage, which neither can easily walk away from.

Housing data in countries such as America show that a large number of divorced or separated couples are still tied to joint mortgages, mostly due to the high refinancing costs and stricter lending requirements.

In Britain, rising interest rates have further complicated post-divorce settlements, with lenders tightening affordability thresholds, making it harder for one partner to take over a loan individually.

Joint liability

In Kenya, a growing number of couples are divorcing, so how do they handle their mortgages? Amos Shihundu, an advocate at Shihundu Amos and Associates, says the legal reality is at odds with what divorcees assume.

He says leaving the matrimonial home does not release a spouse from their financial obligations.

‘Moving out does not extinguish contractual liability. A mortgage is a contract between the borrowers and the lender,’ he says.

The advocate says where parties are co-borrowers, the liability is ordinarily joint and several. This means that a lender can demand full repayment from either party, regardless of who continues to occupy the house.

When it comes to the legal standpoint, occupation of the house and contribution to mortgage repayments are treated as separate matters.

‘The spouse who vacates the property does not, by that fact alone, shed financial responsibility. The lender’s rights remain intact regardless of domestic arrangements between spouses,’ he adds.

This legal rigidity also extends to attempts to alter the mortgage structure. One partner cannot remove the other from the loan without consent.

Mr Shihundu says a mortgage is a tripartite arrangement involving both borrowers and the lending institution. Any change requires the lender’s approval, usually through refinancing or restructuring.

‘Absent this, any unilateral attempt is legally ineffective. Courts have consistently upheld the sanctity of contractual obligations with financial institutions,’ he says.

Where repayments are not settled on time, the consequences are immediate and shared.

If the partner living in the house stops paying, the lender will initiate recovery measures that may lead to the statutory sale of the property.

‘Both parties’ credit standing is affected, and both remain liable for arrears. The lender is not concerned with who occupies the property,’ he explains.

Market context

Mortgage penetration in Kenya remains relatively low compared to developed markets, with joint home ownership tied to long-term planning and stability.

However, as more dual-income households take on property financing, legal practitioners say disputes over jointly owned homes are becoming more common in divorce proceedings.

The financial challenge makes it difficult for one party to independently assume the loan.

Can a court force the sale of a jointly owned home during divorce?

‘Under the Matrimonial Property Act guided by Article 45(3), courts have the jurisdiction to declare rights in matrimonial property and, where necessary, order the sale of the property where division in kind is impracticable,’ Mr Shihundu says.

This approach aligns with practices in other jurisdictions. In the UK, courts may order the sale of a matrimonial home if parties cannot reach an agreement, while in several US states, judges often prioritise equitable distribution, which can also result in the property being sold and proceeds shared.

Contribution rule

The question of who gets what share of the property becomes more nuanced when one party continues servicing the mortgage after separation.

In such cases, courts adopt a contribution-based analysis. Mr Shihundu explains that although post-separation payments are recognised as additional financial contributions, they do not automatically entitle one party to full ownership.

‘Courts distinguish between preservation of the asset and acquisition of new equity,’ he says.

Payments may be reimbursed or reflected in a larger share, but they do not necessarily extinguish the other party’s interest.

Joint liability

In Kenya, a growing number of couples are divorcing, so how do they handle their mortgages? Amos Shihundu, an advocate at Shihundu Amos and Associates, says the legal reality is at odds with what divorcees assume.

He says leaving the matrimonial home does not release a spouse from their financial obligations.

‘Moving out does not extinguish contractual liability. A mortgage is a contract between the borrowers and the lender,’ he says.

The advocate says where parties are co-borrowers, the liability is ordinarily joint and several. This means that a lender can demand full repayment from either party, regardless of who continues to occupy the house.

When it comes to the legal standpoint, occupation of the house and contribution to mortgage repayments are treated as separate matters.

‘The spouse who vacates the property does not, by that fact alone, shed financial responsibility. The lender’s rights remain intact regardless of domestic arrangements between spouses,’ he adds.

This legal rigidity also extends to attempts to alter the mortgage structure. One partner cannot remove the other from the loan without consent.

Mr Shihundu says a mortgage is a tripartite arrangement involving both borrowers and the lending institution. Any change requires the lender’s approval, usually through refinancing or restructuring.

‘Absent this, any unilateral attempt is legally ineffective. Courts have consistently upheld the sanctity of contractual obligations with financial institutions,’ he says.

Where repayments are not settled on time, the consequences are immediate and shared.

If the partner living in the house stops paying, the lender will initiate recovery measures that may lead to the statutory sale of the property.

‘Both parties’ credit standing is affected, and both remain liable for arrears. The lender is not concerned with who occupies the property,’ he explains.

Market context

Mortgage penetration in Kenya remains relatively low compared to developed markets, with joint home ownership tied to long-term planning and stability.

However, as more dual-income households take on property financing, legal practitioners say disputes over jointly owned homes are becoming more common in divorce proceedings.

The financial challenge makes it difficult for one party to independently assume the loan.

Can a court force the sale of a jointly owned home during divorce?

‘Under the Matrimonial Property Act guided by Article 45(3), courts have the jurisdiction to declare rights in matrimonial property and, where necessary, order the sale of the property where division in kind is impracticable,’ Mr Shihundu says.

This approach aligns with practices in other jurisdictions. In the UK, courts may order the sale of a matrimonial home if parties cannot reach an agreement, while in several US states, judges often prioritise equitable distribution, which can also result in the property being sold and proceeds shared.

Contribution rule

The question of who gets what share of the property becomes more nuanced when one party continues servicing the mortgage after separation.

In such cases, courts adopt a contribution-based analysis. Mr Shihundu explains that although post-separation payments are recognised as additional financial contributions, they do not automatically entitle one party to full ownership.

‘Courts distinguish between preservation of the asset and acquisition of new equity,’ he says.

Payments may be reimbursed or reflected in a larger share, but they do not necessarily extinguish the other party’s interest.

The High Court has temporarily barred the arrest and prosecution of a Nairobi lawyer over alleged Sh1 million bribery claims linked to a judge handling a commercial case involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju.

The court, however, allowed the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to continue investigating the allegations, including summoning the lawyer, Joseph Kimani Wachira, to record statements.

It barred the EACC from arresting, charging or prosecuting him, ruling that State agencies must respect constitutional safeguards even as they pursue corruption claims.

The court restrained the EACC and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from arresting, charging or prosecuting Mr Wachira pending further directions.

‘The restraining order does not suspend any lawful investigations into allegations of bribery or corruption,’ the judge ruled.

The case arises from an alleged meeting on March 9 at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary in Karen involving Mr Tuju, former High Court judge Joseph Mutava and businessman Thomas Awili, where a Sh1 million cash sum was allegedly placed on the table by Mr Tuju.

Mr Wachira claims the money was introduced without prior discussion in what he terms a staged attempt to fabricate a bribery case, insisting he neither solicited nor accepted any bribe.

Legal claim

The court said EACC investigators remain free to summon the lawyer to record statements.

It further directed Mr Wachira to comply with all investigative requirements, except appearing in court to answer any charges linked to the allegations until further orders are issued.

The ruling marks a shift from an earlier decision where the court had declined to certify the matter as urgent, forcing the lawyer to formally serve all parties before seeking interim relief.

Mr Wachira moved to court in March, seeking to block what he termed an imminent arrest and prosecution over the alleged Sh1 million bribe linked to a sitting High Court judge.

Read: Tuju loses fight to stop auction of Karen properties in Sh1.9bn debt row

He claims the accusations stem from the meeting at Entim Sidai Wellness Sanctuary, whose agenda was to discuss legal issues relating to disputes involving Mr Tuju.

According to his filings, Mr Tuju allegedly placed Sh1 million on the table without prior discussion, which the lawyer describes as a staged attempt to fabricate a bribery case.

He maintains that he neither solicited nor accepted any bribe and was arrested shortly after stepping out to his car to pick a notebook.

‘The production of the said money was unilateral, unsolicited and unexpected,’ Mr Wachira states in his affidavit.

Evidence dispute

The lawyer argues that the alleged bribe had no connection to any judge and that there was no communication or arrangement involving judicial officers.

Mr Wachira also accused EACC investigators of acting in bad faith, alleging that they ignored what he describes as exculpatory evidence.

The High Court did not determine those claims but focused on the legal threshold for interim protection.

Instead, the judge noted that the petition raises issues similar to another case pending before the Anti-Corruption court involving related parties and facts.

She found that a separate petition filed by Dr Kennedy Ngumbau Mulwa involves comparable allegations, the same complainant and similar circumstances of arrest.

The judge ordered the transfer of Mr Wachira’s petition to the specialised division ‘to avoid different courts of concurrent jurisdiction issuing inconsistent decisions in similar matters.’

Judicial stance

The judge also noted that in the parallel case, the court had already granted temporary orders blocking arrest and prosecution for a limited period while allowing investigations to proceed.

By aligning the current orders with that position, the court signalled a consistent judicial approach to handling such disputes.

Mr Wachira, in his petition, accuses investigators of acting in bad faith and ignoring exculpatory evidence, while also raising concerns over reputational damage following the circulation of videos of his arrest.

He argues that the criminal process is being misused to advance private interests linked to property disputes associated with Mr Tuju.

The respondents, including the anti-corruption agency and the prosecution office, are expected to defend their actions as part of their statutory mandate.

The judge emphasised that the agencies retain full authority to investigate.

‘Having appreciated the constitutional and statutory mandates of the respondents,’ she said, the court would not interfere with lawful investigations.

The orders will remain in force until the Anti-Corruption court issues further directions, setting the stage for a consolidated hearing that could determine the trajectory of the case

Nearly a third of bank accounts have been closed for being inactive, freezing billions of shillings in the wake of data clean-up.

Banks shut down 33.8 million accounts in the year to June 2025, representing 30 percent of the 112.5 million deposit accounts the industry held before the crackdown.

Data from the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) shows that the number of accounts fell from 112.5 million in June 2024 to 78.7 million in June 2025, following what lenders described as a ‘data clean-up exercise.’

‘The account clean-up was attributed to the rationalisation of dormant or inactive accounts,’ said KDIC in its latest annual report.

The amount held in dormant accounts could run into billions of shillings.

For instance, a Sh1,000 balance in each of the dropped accounts would easily add up to Sh33.8 billion, pointing to the volume of idle savings locked away in dormant accounts.

Dormant funds

Banks typically designate bank accounts as inactive after 6-12 months of no customer-initiated transactions, irrespective of deposits flowing, and become dormant after one year or more of inactivity.

Lenders then impose restrictions on dormant accounts, including stopping interest earnings, limiting withdrawals, and charging maintenance fees.

Dormancy acts as a safeguard against identity theft and unauthorised access to the idle funds.

Under banking regulations, funds in dormant accounts remain payable to customers upon reactivation.

Many banks levy reactivation charges. KCB Bank Kenya tariff shows it charges Sh200 reactivation fees for accounts that have been dormant for up to two years and Sh500 for those above two years. Equity Bank Kenya has a flat rate of Sh200 while Co-operative Bank of Kenya reactivates for free.

Reactivation usually requires the customer visiting a branch with crucial documents such as a national identification card and a Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) personal identification number (PIN).

KDIC said in an emailed response that it does not segregate deposits as either active or dormant since it protects all deposits in customer bank accounts in the banking system in line with the coverage limit, irrespective of the account status.

‘The corporation does not segregate value of deposits based on active vs dormant since all accounts [dormant and active] are eligible for protection irrespective of the account status,’ said KDIC.

State transfer

The clean-up highlights the vast pool of idle savings now at risk of being transferred to the government for safekeeping until owners come forward to lodge formal claims.

If an account remains dormant for more than five years, the funds are transferred to the Unclaimed Financial Assets Authority (UFAA) for safekeeping until claimed by the owner.

The clean-up also reshapes the narrative around financial inclusion, which has always put banks at the forefront.

FinAccess Household Survey by FSD-Kenya showed Kenya’s financial inclusion stood at 84.9 percent in 2024 compared with 26.8 percent in 2006. The drop in bank account numbers suggests that a portion of previously counted accounts were not actively used.

The KDIC data marks the first public disclosure of account dormancy rates in the banking sector. Previous insights came from a 2016 joint survey involving the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and Financial Sector Deepening Kenya, which showed that 22.3 percent of bank accounts were dormant at the time.

Account growth

Banks have been at the forefront in promoting financial inclusion through physical branches backed by digital and internet banking, which has seen many customers hold multiple accounts.

CBK data shows the number of deposit accounts has been growing over the years, crossing the 100 million mark in 2024 compared with 28.43 million a decade earlier and 8.48 million in 2009.

KDIC said all the accounts affected by the purge held deposits of below Sh500,000, which is the maximum the agency insures and compensates customers in case their bank collapses.

‘Notably, accounts with balances below Sh500,000 decreased by the same number from 111.8 million to 77.9 million, indicating that all the accounts that were dropped fell under this category,’ said KDIC.

The mass closure, however, did not stop the trend of growth in deposits, showing that the amount held in banks is concentrated in the hands of a few top individuals and businesses.

KDIC data shows deposits rose to Sh5.8 trillion in the year ended June 2025 from Sh5.6 trillion a year earlier despite the reduction in account numbers.

The review period saw insured deposits decline by Sh37.9 billion to Sh844 billion in June 2025 from Sh881.9 billion in the previous year.

Coverage gap

The divergence between rising total deposits and falling insured deposits suggests that growth in deposits is increasingly concentrated in larger accounts, which typically exceed the Sh500,000 insurance limit per depositor per bank.

KDIC said the proportion of accounts fully covered remained unchanged at 99.01 percent during the review period. However, the value of deposits protected declined to 14.38 percent in June last year from 15.69 percent in a similar period in 2024.

The 14.38 percent is below the International Association of Deposit Insurance recommended minimum of 20 percent.

The agency last month issued a draft legal notice in which it is seeking to double the maximum compensation to Sh1 million, a move that may improve the ratio of insured deposits to total eligible deposits.

Express Kenya has disclosed the sale of a portion of its land holdings for Sh300 million in an effort to raise funds to clear its debt obligations and improve its cash position.

The listed logistics firm said the disposal of the three acres of its Industrial Area land was concluded early this year.

Express sunk deeper into losses to Sh125 million for the full year ended December 2025 owing to a 19 percent drop in revenues. The company had posted a loss of Sh107.9 million in the prior year.

‘This decrease is attributed to decreased rental of space during the year when the company commenced the construction of a strip mall and filling station in the first phase of its planned projects on the company land which was part of the storage facility,’ said Express Kenya.

The company’s accumulated losses rose to Sh666 million following years of loss making attributable to stiff competition in the logistics industry and delays in executing real estate projects. Express expects to complete the first phase of its construction during the year with part of the cash raised from the property sale earmarked for the project.

‘On 4 June 2025, the company entered into an agreement to dispose of three acres for Sh300 million and the transaction was completed after year-end due to administrative delays in processing new titles after subdivision,’ said the company.

‘As a result, this sale was not reported in the financial year ended 31 December 2025. Since the transaction was subsequently completed in quarter one of 2026, the transaction will be reported in financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2026,’ it added.

Express is also looking at using proceeds from land sale to reduce its debt with its borrowings rising 12.1 percent to Sh429 million. Its financing costs rose 27 percent to Sh51.5 million.

The debt includes borrowings from some of its directors including Hector Diniz on whom it has relied on for working capital over the years.

The company has posted losses in the last decade after taking a blow from losing its key customer East African Breweries Limited (EABL) in 2011. Its rival DHL took over the EABL contract at the time.

Investment property remains Express Kenya’s main asset. The company had earlier announced plans to venture into real estate development by leveraging its land bank but the strategy is yet to progress.

The company’s share price on the Nairobi Securities Exchange traded at Sh7.22 on Monday, giving it a market capitalisation of Sh344.4 million.

The losses have seen its shareholders including Mr Diniz and billionaire investor Paul Wanderi Ndung’u go without dividends for years.

A Chinese firm has been awarded a Sh7.5 billion contract to realign the accident-prone Nithi Bridge, marking a major milestone for President William Ruto’s administration, which has repeatedly promised residents that work on the project would begin.

China Wu Yi Company Limited is expected to start work on the project, whose cost gobbles up half of the 84-kilometre Kenol-Marua dual carriageway, according to disclosures by the Kenya National Highways Authority.

Construction is supposed to have started on April 21, following the signing of the deal some two weeks earlier. China Wu Yi is one of the leading Chinese firms in Kenya, having been involved in major projects, including the Thika Superhighway.

Disclosures published by the procurement regulatory authority show that the company-an overseas construction arm of Fujian Construction Engineering Group-won the contract competitively and is expected to build the bridge over three years, to August 7, 2029.

The project entails realignment of the road along a 2.7-kilometre stretch from Marima to Mitheru shopping centres, with the bridge itself spanning 880 metres.

KeNHA recently released designs of the new Nithi Bridge, billed as one of the most spectacular and expensive road crossings in the country.

With a steep descent and several sharp corners, the three-kilometre stretch of the bridge is a death trap, earning it the infamous label of a blackspot.

As you approach the bridge from both sides, there are prominent road signs warning motorists of the danger ahead. Rumble strips were also installed to separate the lanes, but these measures have failed to stem the carnage.

The planned realignment of Nithi Bridge goes beyond routine repairs, involving a redesign of the steep and curved approach roads that have made the section one of Kenya’s deadliest accident spots, with dozens of crashes and over 100 lives lost in recent years.

Soon after his election, President William Ruto designated the infamous Nithi Bridge as one of his top policy priorities, repeatedly promising the people of Tharaka Nithi that he would soon embark on the reconstruction of the notoriously risky stretch.

Dual carriageway

‘[On] the Nithi Bridge issue… we agreed with you… that this bridge will stop killing the people of Tharaka Nithi and here in Meru. We are already planning to prepare this year’s budget. The money to replace the bridge and even the road should not be as problematic as that…’ Ruto told congregants at a church in Tharaka Nithi in 2023.

One year to the next general election, President Ruto appears keen to deliver on his promise to realign the killer bridge.

Addressing residents of Meru recently, Deputy President Kithure Kindiki said the government was committed to completing the project on time.

‘We now have the funds and the public has already been engaged for their input. Soon, I will bring the contractor to start construction,’ the DP said in Tigania East on February 25, 2026.

According to the KeNHA project brief, the bridge will have an eight-metre dual carriageway, two-metre shoulders or walkways on either side, and a maximum gradient of eight percent to enhance safety.

The structure, literally flying over the Nithi River, will be supported by massive pillars, some of them rising as high as 100 metres from the deepest point of the Nithi Valley.

Engineers explained that since the bridge takes a different route from the current road, there will be minimal traffic disruption during construction.

For many couples, divorce is often the first time they are forced to take a close look at their joint finances. In that moment – often rushed and emotionally charged – decisions are made that can shape their financial future for years.

‘Divorce is often described as the death of a marriage, but in the eyes of the law and the treasury, it is the dissolution of a complex financial corporation,’ says Monicah Mwaniki, co-founder and CEO of ArvoCap Asset Managers, framing the separation not just as an emotional rupture but a high-stakes financial transition.

‘While the emotional toll is heavy, the fiscal consequences of a poorly managed split can resonate for decades.’

Ms Mwaniki points to one of the most common pitfalls: allowing emotional attachment to override financial logic.

‘Many individuals fight tooth and nail to keep the family home, even if they cannot afford the mortgage and maintenance costs on a single income. Most parties treat a house as a sanctuary rather than an asset, and hence get lost in the emotions.’

Mary Mwangi, a Nairobi-based financial advisor, echoes this, noting that divorce is ‘a highly emotional process’ where decisions are often driven by revenge, guilt, fear or emotional fatigue.

‘Logic sometimes disappears,’ she says, leading to costly missteps with long-term consequences.

Another recurring mistake is misvaluation – or a complete lack of understanding – of assets.

Ms Mwaniki warns that many people confuse current value with retained value, particularly when dealing with complex holdings such as businesses or investment portfolios.

‘Failing to perform a forensic valuation of a family business can lead to one spouse being ‘bought out’ for a fraction of the company’s true worth.’

Ms Mwangi adds that some spouses may not even be fully aware of all the assets in play, from Sacco savings and shares to undisclosed bank accounts. Others deliberately withhold such information – a move she says can ‘backfire when it comes to the legal processes.’

Fair split

To avoid costly errors, Ms Mwaniki urges couples to stop thinking in terms of ‘mine’ and ‘yours’ and instead view their wealth as ‘a finite pie that needs to support two households instead of one.’

She emphasises that not all assets should be split mechanically. Some lose value when divided. In such cases, alternative structures such as trust funds can help preserve value and protect dependents.

Ms Mwangi also warns against ignoring liquidity.

‘One party can be asset-rich and cash-poor,’ she says, noting that an imbalance between fixed assets and cash can create both short-term strain and long-term inequality.

Debt is another area where assumptions can prove costly.

‘A common misconception is that a divorce decree ‘cancels’ your responsibility to a creditor,’ Ms Mwaniki explains. ‘Creditors are not party to your divorce.’

This means that even if one spouse is assigned a loan, the other may still be legally liable if repayments stop.

Ms Mwangi reinforces this point, stressing that all financial obligations must be legally documented and, where possible, restructured or refinanced.

‘The banks don’t care about your divorce,’ she says. ‘They expect everything to continue as it was.’

Timing errors

Timing also plays a critical role.

Ms Mwangi notes that costly mistakes often begin ‘from the onset,’ particularly when couples rely on informal agreements or rush into signing documents without fully understanding their implications.

Emotional exhaustion can lead individuals to accept unfair settlements simply to ‘get it over with,’ resulting in long-term financial damage.

Ms Mwaniki similarly cautions against holding onto assets that are more liability than benefit, advising that in some cases, ‘sell early and split the proceeds to preserve capital.’

In the Kenyan context, Ms Mwangi highlights additional blind spots that complicate divorce settlements.

Many marriages are not formally documented, making asset division contentious. Others involve property registered under one spouse – often the man – despite joint contribution, while a general lack of wills and estate planning further muddies the process.

She also notes that many Kenyans are unaware that non-monetary contributions, such as homemaking, are recognised under the law – a gap that can disadvantage one party during settlement.

Future costs

Child support and long-term obligations introduce another layer of complexity.

Ms Mwangi warns that costs such as education are not static and must be planned with inflation and future needs in mind.

‘If conditions are made based on current costs, over time this could end up being unfair to one party or affecting the children altogether,’ she says.

Crucially, both experts stress the importance of involving financial professionals early.

Ms Mwaniki advocates for a ‘blend of emotional grace and clinical precision,’ while Ms Mwangi argues that financial advisors should work alongside legal counsel.

‘You can win legally, but you lose financially,’ she notes, pointing out that legal victories do not always translate into sustainable financial outcomes.

Aftermath planning

Even after the divorce is finalised, financial missteps can persist.

Ms Mwaniki observes that many individuals fail to adjust their spending habits, continuing to live as though they are in a dual-income household. Others engage in what she terms ‘therapy spending’ or ‘revenge spending.’

Ms Mwangi adds that many overlook critical administrative updates, such as changing beneficiaries on insurance policies, pensions and bank accounts – a lapse that could result in assets being transferred to an ex-spouse.

‘The ink may be dry, but the financial work isn’t over,’ Ms Mwaniki says.

She advises individuals to rebuild deliberately: re-budget, update financial plans, secure insurance, and re-establish savings and investment structures.

‘Take stock of what has been affected,’ she says, ‘and then rebuild with clarity.’

The Court of Appeal has declined MultiChoice Kenya’s bid to escalate a construction dispute to the Supreme Court, where it sought to quash criminal charges against two experts it relied on in a Sh895 million dispute with a local construction firm.

A three-judge panel ruled that MultiChoice had not identified any specific, novel or unsettled legal issues that warranted the attention of the Supreme Court.

‘In our view, the applicant does not point to any uncertainty, inconsistency or lacuna in the principles applied by this court. Rather, what is sought is, in substance, a reconsideration of the evidentiary threshold for establishing abuse of process in the context of the particular facts of this case,’ the court ruled on April 30.

MultiChoice contracted Cementers Ltd in 2015 to build an ultramodern office block in Kilimani, but the two parties fell out and MultiChoice terminated the contract in June 2017.

The pay-TV firm later claimed that the contractor’s work was substandard, resulting in cracks appearing in parts of the building.

It then hired experts who prepared a report showing that the building was structurally unsafe. Mr Stanley Kebathi, the principal architect, and Mr Kariuki Muchemi of Interconsult Engineers Ltd (IEL) prepared reports on the structural integrity of the construction.

Cementers then filed a complaint, alleging that the experts had altered or falsified the report to shift blame for the structural defects.

MultiChoice then sought to demolish the building claiming it was a health hazard, triggering law suits as Cementers claimed the report was doctored to evade payment.

The investigations led the criminal charges of conspiracy to defraud and making a false document.

In March 2022, the experts were charged alongside Mr Wilson Karaba, IEL, Conapex Consulting Engineers, and SK Archplans with conspiring to falsify a structural integrity report as part of a scheme to defraud.

Mr Kebathi challenged the prosecution in the High Court, but the case was dismissed in July 2023. An appeal was also dismissed in January last year, with the court noting the experts had failed to prove an ulterior motive behind the charges.

The experts argued the criminal proceedings were intended to damage their reputations and influence ongoing arbitration and court cases.

Then MultiChoice sought Supreme Court’s intervention, arguing the case raised broader issues on prosecutorial overreach and abuse of process in commercial disputes.

MultiChoice argued that the intended appeal raises important and recurring questions on the limits of prosecutorial discretion and the threshold for establishing abuse of criminal process in cases intertwined with civil disputes.

The firm said the issue transcends the parties and has public significance regarding prosecutorial accountability.