Category: Business Daily

Kenya’s unclaimed financial assets fund has grown by 8.41 percent (Sh10 billion) in eight months, reflecting a growing trend of citizens losing track of their wealth, as holding companies ramped up reporting compliance to avoid a 25 percent financial penalty.

Latest disclosures by the Unclaimed Financial Assets Authority (Ufaa) show the value of abandoned wealth remitted to the State-owned agency to date surged by Sh9.7 billion to Sh125 billion from Sh115.03 billion in December 2025.

However, only Sh3.12 billion, equivalent to 2.49 percent of the total unclaimed assets remitted (Sh125 billion), has been reunited to the beneficial owners.

Section 33 of the Unclaimed Financial Assets Act (2011) provides that failure to report and surrender qualifying unclaimed financial assets by November 1 of each year attracts penalties and sanctions of 25 percent of the unclaimed financial assets held.

In addition, failure of a holder to willingly and fully report any unclaimed financial assets under their custody renders them liable for a penalty of Sh7,000, but not more than Sh50,000 for each day the report is held.

These dormant assets include forgotten wealth comprising idle bank accounts, uncollected insurance payouts, abandoned shares and dividends, and dormant mobile money accounts.

Faced with heavy penalties for holding onto dormant accounts, commercial banks, listed companies, insurance firms, and telecommunication companies have accelerated their reporting and remittance of the dormant assets.

Ufaa began receiving unclaimed financial assets from holders in 2014 and reuniting them with beneficiaries in 2016.

However, the Auditor General, in a report dated August 2025, says the rate of unification is still significantly low.

Ufaa has lined up a raft of policy changes, including easing penalties and extending the dormancy period, in a bid to mop up idle resources in the country.

The authority is seeking to extend the time listed companies and saccos have to look for the rightful owners of dividends by two years before such assets can be declared abandoned and handed over to the agency.

The Unclaimed Financial Assets (Amendment) Bill proposes that shares and dividends be presumed abandoned after five years, up from the current three years.

Dividends are deemed abandoned when payouts fail to reach intended owners due to outdated contact details, uncashed physical cheques, or inactive bank accounts.

Listed firms and saccos will now have more time to locate the owners of the financial assets before turning them over to Ufaa which has an even harder task of identifying the investors whose details it gets from third parties.

As of June this year, listed companies had submitted Sh5.3 billion to the authority, leaving more than Sh8.5 billion in unclaimed dividends in their books. Saccos had remitted Sh160 million to the authority, leaving them holding Sh16.5 billion worth of unclaimed dividends.

Ufaa is also looking to soften penalties levied on companies that have idle resources in their books to encourage them to voluntarily submit what they are holding.

The Bill proposes a penalty of 25 percent of the value of unremitted assets, a departure from the current law, which has three types of penalties.

Non-compliant companies are charged 25 percent of the unsurrendered unclaimed assets and are levied a penalty of between Sh7,000 and Sh50,000 for each day that the assets stayed before being submitted.

An interest of one percent per month is also charged on the unclaimed assets based on the assumption that the resources were earning the company a return.

Executives of the non-remitting company can also be penalised with a sum of up to Sh 1 million for the non-remittance and could be imprisoned for a period not exceeding a year.

A survey conducted last year showed unclaimed assets valued at Sh394.9 billion are yet to be remitted to Ufaa, which has only received Sh125 billion in shares and cash.

Commercial banks are said to hold the largest share of unremitted assets, at Sh133.8 billion. The manufacturing sector holds Sh24.2 billion in unremitted wages, according to the survey, while universities have Sh8.3 billion associated with caution money deposited with the institutions by first-year students.

When one of her cats fell sick, first with diarrhoea, then later with calicivirus, Joan Bingi did not see the bill coming. By the time treatment was done, she had spent Sh18,500. It remains the biggest bill she has paid in more than a decade of keeping cats.

“The one thing that I had not anticipated about becoming a pet owner is their treatment costs,” she says. “These include vaccines as well as boosters.”

Joan has four cats now, two adults and two kittens, and her monthly spending shifts depending on who needs what. She got her oldest cat in 2014, after a stray wandered into the family compound.

She spends about Sh4,500 a month on the four cats, though the figure goes up when kittens are in the mix. Most of it goes to food. A large compound helps her avoid heavy litter costs, since the cats have room to roam.

For years, healthcare was not a concern. Her cats stayed healthy, and she assumed that would continue.

“I guess there was a kind of protective bubble around me because the first time any of my cats fell sick was like five years later in 2020,” she says. “After that, it’s like the bubble burst. I was paying for treatments year in and year out .”

She now budgets roughly Sh3,500 a month for food and tries to put aside another Sh500 to Sh700 for vaccines and treatment. When that is not enough, she dips into her personal savings. “Health-wise, I spend more on my cats than myself, but it’s my love for them that enables me to do so,” she says.

Build a dedicated fund

Joan’s experience is exactly what Joyce Gikonyo, a financial advisor at ICEA LION Group, sees as the biggest blind spot for pet owners. People budget for food, but medical costs catch them off guard, especially as an animal ages.

“Medical emergencies such as surgery can cost hundreds of thousands of shillings,” Joyce says. “As animals age, they can also develop chronic conditions requiring regular medication and specialised care.”

Her advice is to build a dedicated fund for the pet before the bills arrive, not after. “Have a seed amount as a starting safety net; this depends on all the variables outlined above. Build on the fund monthly,” she says.

William Papateti, a 29-year-old accountant and creative professional, learned a version of that lesson without the big bill. His cat once fell four floors and broke its leg. He braced for an expensive vet visit, but nature took its course.

“He rested for two days, only eating and pooping, then the leg healed on its own,” William says.

His routine costs are more predictable. He spends about Sh2,500 a month, with a kilo of dry food lasting a month at Sh765, wet tuna packets at Sh100 each for about five packets, and litter at Sh1,250. He has also bought toys and accessories, a neck bandana, catnip, a scratcher, a nail cutter and a ball, ordered from China through AliExpress for about Sh1,000. He has skipped neutering, which would cost roughly Sh7,500.

His advice to anyone thinking about getting a cat is to set aside about Sh3,000 a month “for the cat to be comfortable and happy.”

Joyce says this kind of routine spending is exactly what should be separated from the occasional, unpredictable costs when a household plans a pet budget. Recurring items like food and litter can be forecast with some accuracy, she says, while medical and emergency costs need their own cushion. She points to money market funds as one practical tool for owners.

“Money Market Funds are useful tools that can help separate the pet expenses from the domestic ones,” she says.

Sh25,000 monthly

Gilbert Otieno’s expenses sit in a different bracket altogether. He owns two Siberian Huskies, Tiana and Bella, and paid Sh90,000 and Sh100,000 for them, respectively. Tiana is two years and two months old. Bella is one year and four months old. He bought both as puppies, drawn in by the breed’s blue eyes.

The purchase price was only the start. Gilbert spends up to Sh25,000 a month on food and vaccines, depending on the dogs’ age and needs. Puppy vaccinations cost more early on. Now that both dogs are adults, annual vaccinations run about Sh10,000, and a typical month costs him roughly Sh15,000 for food and vaccines combined.

His biggest single expense came when Tiana developed an ear infection after swimming and needed an urgent vet visit. The bill topped Sh15,000, and he did not have the cash on hand at the time. “I had to find a way to take her for a vet check-up,” he says.

That scare pushed him to start keeping an emergency fund, especially since Huskies, he says, have a habit of eating things that are toxic to them.

The smaller costs- treats, chew toys, cleaning products, leashes and grooming supplies- add up in ways he did not plan for. Keeping the dogs entertained is its own expense too. Walks are free, but toys and enrichment items are not, and Huskies need both regularly.

“I wish I had understood how much the smaller expenses add up. Especially toys, leashes and grooming products. Not to mention the commitment,” he says.

Pet insurance

This is precisely the kind of gap Joyce flags when she tells clients to think beyond the animal’s purchase price. Food, medical care, grooming, housing, and items such as beds, leashes and toys should all be part of the initial calculation, she says, along with training costs and the risk of property damage. She also recommends pet insurance as a safeguard against a bill like the one that caught Gilbert off guard.

Arvin Munyiri Murimi’s costs are more modest, but still caught him off guard. The 28-year-old senior art director, who calls himself a cat dad, spends between Sh2,000 and Sh5,000 a month.

“What I failed to budget for was the food and cat litter, especially with the cat being a house cat,” he says.

His cat has stayed largely healthy aside from routine deworming.

“I think it’s greatly attributed to the fact that he has a good diet. Apart from that one time I spent Sh5,000 on medication and specialised food,” Arvin says.

He is reluctant to set a fixed monthly minimum, arguing that cost depends heavily on how the animal lives. “It depends if it’s a house cat or one that goes out and comes around to sleep,” he says.

Ms Gikonyo says that variability is normal, and it is exactly why she tells owners to build their pet budget around their own animal’s circumstances rather than a generic figure. Food costs shift with an animal’s size, breed and health. Grooming needs depend on the breed. An indoor cat and an outdoor cat will never cost the same to keep, even within the same species.

She further advises pet owners to separate recurring costs from occasional and discretionary ones, cut spending where it is safe to do so, such as buying food in bulk or grooming pets at home, and keep the pet’s finances apart from the household’s day-to-day money.

Container inspection is a routine part of port operations. But routine processes deserve scrutiny when they are repeated at scale.

At a busy container terminal, a truck arrives at the gate, stops for inspection, and the container is checked for visible damage, seals, and labels before the vehicle proceeds. Each transaction may take only a few minutes. Across hundreds or thousands of trucks, however, those minutes can affect truck turnaround and gate capacity.

This raises a practical question: can routine container inspection be automated without compromising control?

The Port of Helsingborg in Sweden provides an instructive example.

In July 2025, the port introduced automated damage inspection at its Central Gate. Cameras capture containers as trucks pass through, while artificial intelligence analyses the images for visible external damage and checks for the presence of seals and labels. Routine manual inspection is reduced, while exceptions can still be referred for further inspection.

The significance lies not simply in the use of cameras at a port gate. Automated imaging and gate systems are not new. The important development is the use of AI to support a different inspection model: rather than manually inspecting every container in the same way, technology can screen the containers as they gate in and direct human attention only to specific containers that require closer examination.

The value of better information

Container condition matters because damage can become a source of disputes between terminals, shipping lines, hauliers, cargo owners and other stakeholders.

A digital record of a container’s condition at the gate can provide evidence of what was observed and when. It does not eliminate disputes, but it can improve the information available when they occur.

This is where AI inspection becomes more than an automation project.

If inspection results can be connected to the terminal operating system, electronic records, and gate processes, inspection becomes part of the wider cargo transaction. The container is identified, its condition is assessed, the result is recorded, and the system determines whether it can proceed or requires further attention.

The objective is not necessarily to remove human inspectors. It is to use them where human judgement is most valuable.

What does this mean for Nigeria?

Nigeria and other African markets are already investing in port digitalisation. But digital infrastructure alone does not necessarily produce operational efficiency. The value depends on how effectively different systems and processes work together.

For a Nigerian terminal considering AI-powered container inspection, the starting point should therefore not be the technology. It should be an operational problem.

How much time does inspection add to a gate transaction? How many containers are processed each day? Where are the biggest sources of delay? How frequently do container damage disputes occur? What is the cost of those delays and disputes?

Only then should a port assess the technology and its potential return.

There are also practical considerations. The system must work reliably across different weather and lighting conditions. It must integrate with existing gate and terminal systems. A clear process for handling exceptions, along with appropriate human oversight, is required.

A pilot deployment at a high-volume gate or terminal could provide the evidence needed to determine whether such an investment makes operational sense.

Integration is the bigger opportunity.

The wider lesson is that ports should avoid treating automation as a collection of standalone projects.

An AI inspection system has greater value when it connects with other parts of the port ecosystem. Gate activity, truck appointments, terminal operations, cargo information, and inspection records can become part of a more connected operating process.

Nigeria already has local technology companies developing capabilities around this kind of integration. WATT, for example, is developing intelligent mobility infrastructure focused on connecting technology, data, and physical operations across the logistics chain. That kind of capability will become increasingly relevant as ports move from isolated automation projects towards integrated operating models.

The opportunity, therefore, is not simply to introduce AI at the gate. It is to create an environment in which the information generated by AI can trigger the right action, promptly, elsewhere in the port.

For African ports, the objective should not be to copy Helsingborg. It should be to identify where manual processes create avoidable delays, inconsistent information, or unnecessary intervention, and determine whether technology can address those specific problems. AI-powered container inspection may be one such opportunity.

The more important question is whether ports are prepared to examine their existing processes closely enough to know where automation will create measurable value.

That is where the next wave of port efficiency gains is likely to emerge: not from technology for its own sake, but from technology applied to clearly defined operational challenges.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is set to give Kenya Sh7.1billion ($55mn) fresh financing to help farmers raise productivity and gain access to better markets.

IFAD Country Director and representative for Kenya, Matteo Marchisio, said the executive board of the UN’s specialised agency approved the additional financing for the Kenya Livestock Commercialisation Programme (KeLCoP).

‘The IFAD Executive Board approved today additional financing of approximately Sh7.1 billion (US$55 million) for the Kenya Livestock Commercialisation Programme,’ Mr Marchisio said in a statement.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is set to give Kenya Sh7.1billion ($55mn) fresh financing to help farmers raise productivity and gain access to better markets.

IFAD Country Director and representative for Kenya, Matteo Marchisio, said the executive board of the UN’s specialised agency approved the additional financing for the Kenya Livestock Commercialisation Programme (KeLCoP).

‘The IFAD Executive Board approved today additional financing of approximately Sh7.1 billion (US$55 million) for the Kenya Livestock Commercialisation Programme,’ Mr Marchisio said in a statement.

Kenyan startup Twiga Foods has entered administration amid financial turmoil, joining a group of 13 once-promising ventures that have collapsed over the past five years after raising capital in excess of Sh93 billion.

The business failures, including that of Koko Networks, Lipa Later and Copia, highlight the heavy losses that financiers and investors, mostly venture and private equity firms based in Western countries, have suffered.

The collapse of the young businesses has also rendered thousands of Kenyans jobless, with the firms typically engaging in a hiring blitz with a plan to gain scale and reach profitability.

Twiga Foods operated a business-to-business (B2B) marketplace that sourced farm produce directly from farmers and delivered it to urban retailers.

Mohamed Mohamed of Maawiy Financial Advisory Limited was appointed administrator of GT Flow Limited, formerly known as Twiga Foods One Limited, on August 17.

Twiga Foods attracted $185.4 million (Sh24 billion) from investors, according to the global business database Crunchbase. Its backers include the French investment firm Creadev.

It is the latest in a series of heavily funded Kenyan startups that have collapsed, been placed under administration, or wound up after struggling to raise more money, achieve profitability, or cope with difficult market conditions.

A Business Daily analysis shows Twiga Foods is among 13 ventures to collapse in the past five years after collectively raising $717.5 million (Sh93 billion) from investors.

E-commerce startup Copia, which raised $123 million (Sh15.9 billion), failed to secure additional funding as 2024 began, putting it under financial strain.

Copia provided a platform for rural consumers to order products delivered through agents.

In May 2024, the company cut more than 1,000 jobs and warned of a looming shutdown before being placed under administration.

Copia was backed by the Kenyan venture capital firm Enza Capital and UK’s Lightrock.

Clean cooking startup Koko Networks, which had raised more than $100 million (Sh13 billion), was placed under administration in February 2026 on the brink of bankruptcy.

Koko Networks sold heavily subsidised bioethanol stoves and fuel to low-income households.

The company recouped losses through carbon credit sales in global compliance carbon markets.

Koko Networks filed for administration after Kenyan authorities refused to issue it a letter of approval to sell carbon credits, leaving over 700 direct staff and thousands of refilling agents jobless.

Its investors include Microsoft’s Climate Innovation Fund and French asset manager Mirova.

Another casualty has been Lipa Later, a technology credit venture that raised $16.6 million (Sh2.1 billion) and was placed under administration in March 2025 amid undisclosed financial woes.

Lipa Later was backed by Cauris Finance and Lateral Frontiers and had over 200 staff and a network of about 1,000 agents.

Gro Intelligence, an agriculture and climate data company, raised $117.7 million (Sh15.2 billion) before shutting down operations in June 2024.

The company provided AI-powered data analytics, satellite imaging, and predictive models focused on agriculture and climate risk.

In March 2024, the company laid off 60 percent of its workforce before shutting down operations after failing to secure sufficient capital.

Carmaker Mobius Motors shut down operations in August 2024 and sent over 40 workers home amid mounting debts and a multi-million-shilling tax dispute, which pushed it into voluntary liquidation.

By August 2020, it had a debt of Sh649.2 million and a shareholders’ deficit of Sh389.1 million. The company had raised $56 million (Sh7.3 billion) from investors such as Kepple Africa Ventures.

Mobius was later acquired in bankruptcy in 2025 by Silver Box, a Middle Eastern firm.

Agritech startup iProcure, which raised $17.1 million (Sh2.2 billion), was placed under administration after filing for bankruptcy in April 2024.

The business-to-business (B2B) platform connected agricultural input suppliers directly with local agro-dealers.

Logistics startup Sendy, which raised $24.7 million (Sh3.2 billion), closed in 2023 after running out of money and failing to find a buyer, sending home over 200 staff.

Sendy operated an app linking delivery drivers with customers. Its investors include the Toyota Tsusho Corporation.

Another B2B e-commerce startup, MarketForce, raised $84.1 million (Sh10.9 billion) before winding up in April 2024.

The company enabled informal retailers to order fast-moving consumer goods from distributors and manufacturers. It was backed by V8 Capital Partners, among others.

Kune Foods shut down in June 2022, barely a year after starting operations. It offered ready-to-eat affordable meals and had raised $1 million (Sh129 million).

Wefarm, which raised $32 million (Sh4.1 billion), shut down in 2022 due to difficult market conditions and scaling challenges. Wefarm operated a farmer-to-farmer digital network that enabled users to share information via SMS.

E-commerce firm Zumi shut down in March 2023 after raising $1 million (Sh129 million).

Notify Logistics also shut down in August 2022 after raising $374,000 (Sh48.4 million).

The failures have come despite large investments in Kenyan startups over the past decade.

In 2025, Kenya was Africa’s leading venture capital destination, when startups raised $984 million (Sh127.5 billion), according to the startup funding tracker Africa: The Big Deal.

For venture capitalists, however, startup collapses are factored into the funding strategy, where a small number of successful companies pay for a high rate of failures.

The High Court has upheld a procurement watchdog’s decision requiring KenGen to independently verify disputed manufacturer authorisation documents before proceeding with a Sh106.8 million compressor tender.

The court dismissed Comprehensive Development Limited’s case against the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board’s (PPARB) July 14, 2026 decision, allowing the checks to continue.

‘The respondent (PPARB) acted within the statutory mandate … when it directed the procuring entity to undertake further due diligence. The direction was connected to the verification requirements under TR2 and TR4 of the Tender Document and did not, in itself, introduce a new evaluation criterion or determine the outcome of the procurement,’ the court said.

The dispute centred on a tender floated early this year by KenGen for supply of spares and technical support services for Comp Air compressors for geothermal power plants under a three-year framework contract.

Four bidders submitted offers when the tender closed on April 23, 2026. Comprehensive Development emerged as the successful bidder at an estimated Sh106.8 million.

Finton Logistics, one of the unsuccessful bidders, challenged the intended award before PPARB on June 24, arguing that the rival had not been shown to possess authority to issue manufacturer-backed warranties or authorisations.

Finton questioned whether documents submitted by Comprehensive were issued by an authorised entity. They included a Certificate of Warranty and Manufacturer’s Authorisation Form issued by Jiangmen Hongze Environmental Protection Co. Ltd.

But Comprehensive maintained that it had met requirements and that KenGen had verified the documents.

PPARB found Comprehensive technically responsive, but held that KenGen’s due diligence had not conclusively settled Jiangmen Hongze’s authority. It directed KenGen to conduct fresh and more comprehensive checks.

Tender documents required a warranty certificate on the manufacturer’s letterhead. They also demanded a signed manufacturer’s authorisation, or proof that the bidder was a manufacturer, authenticated agent, dealership or OEM-authorised dealer.

Finton also relied on correspondence linked to the Gardner Denver and Ingersoll Rand manufacturer structure, saying it cast doubt on whether Jiangmen Hongze’s authority covered the products and project.

It further said KenGen’s due diligence was inadequate because it had sought confirmation from Jiangmen Hongze itself, describing the exercise as ‘self-authentication’. It wanted the award annulled.

But Comprehensive maintained that it had met both requirements and that KenGen had verified the documents. It argued that the Board exceeded its powers by ordering another inquiry and introduced an undisclosed requirement for original-manufacturer confirmation.

PPARB found Comprehensive technically responsive, but held that KenGen’s due diligence under Section 83 of the procurement law had not conclusively settled Jiangmen Hongze’s authority.

It directed KenGen to conduct fresh and more comprehensive checks, including verification from the manufacturer or another authoritative source, before continuing with the tender.

The Board rejected Comprehensive’s bid to strike out the case over alleged misuse of confidential procurement information, finding no evidence of unlawful access.

KenGen defended its evaluation but did not oppose the additional checks. Its Accounting Officer said the exercise was neither onerous nor prejudicial because the documents’ authenticity and enforceability needed to be established.

Finton supported the decision, saying the evidence raised questions over Jiangmen Hongze’s authority.

The court held that the Board had not disqualified Comprehensive, declared Jiangmen Hongze unauthorised or awarded the tender to Finton.

It said the Board had not found Jiangmen Hongze unauthorised, disqualified Comprehensive or awarded the tender to Finton.

‘Rather, it directed first and second Interested Parties (KenGEN and its accounting officer) to undertake further verification of that outstanding question before proceeding with the procurement,’ the court said.

It held that Section 173(b) of the Act empowered the Board to direct that something be ‘done or redone’ in procurement proceedings. The power could not, however, impose new qualifications or rewrite tender rules.

‘Due diligence cannot be used as a device to introduce a new evaluation criterion,’ the court said, adding that it verifies compliance with requirements already disclosed.

It found that the Board was checking an existing requirement, not creating a new one. Comprehensive had relied on Jiangmen Hongze as an authenticated agent, making its actual authority relevant to the documents supporting compliance.

The court found no illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness or excess of jurisdiction.

Kenya Power’s electricity sales grew by 1,389.42 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) in the period ended June 2026, marking the sharpest rise in four years on increased connections and surging demand.

Provisional data shows Kenya Power sold 12,792.42 GWh in the period, a rise of 12.2 percent from 11,403 GWh a year ago, reflecting the impact of growing demand for electricity and the 411,710 new connections.

The growth is set to drive Kenya Power’s electricity revenues from the Sh219.29 billion it reported in the year ended June 2025, even as the utility remains wary of the impact of lower consumer tariffs on earnings.

Electricity demand has been on a steady rise, marked by fresh peak demands that have, however, cast doubts on Kenya Power’s ability to meet the rising consumption amid growing imports from Ethiopia.

For example, Kenya has recorded four peak demands since July last year, with the current one being 2,549 megawatts (MW) on July 15, 2026, underscoring the soaring consumption.

The financial impact of the record high electricity sales in the period ended June 2026 will be disclosed when Kenya Power announces its performance for the period.

Higher electricity sales are critical to Kenya Power given that the firm is undertaking a revamp of the grid to lower losses, besides meeting the growing connections.

Kenya Power has already disclosed that revenues from electricity sales in the half-year ended December 2025 grew to Sh107.42 billion from Sh114.87 billion a year ago, driven by increased unit sales and reduced system losses.

Joseph Siror, the Managing Director of Kenya Power, last year decried the impact of the reduced consumer tariffs on electricity revenues, adding that a reduction in base consumer tariffs was partly to blame for the Sh11.84 billion fall in electricity revenues in the year ended Jun 2025, even as unit sales grew by 887 GWh to 11,403 GWh.

Consumer tariffs have been falling year-on-year in line with the gazetted rates that took effect in April 2023 and were set to lapse in June this year.

For example, the gazetted cost of a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of power for domestic consumers using more than 100kWh a month fell to Sh18.57 in the year to June 2026 from Sh19.08 a year ago and Sh20.58 in the year to June 2024.

Tariff for the big consumers who use between 1,000-15,000kWh a month dropped to Sh18 per unit in the year ended June 2026 from Sh18.3 a year earlier and Sh19.12 in the year to June 2024.

The reduction in the base tariffs affected all consumer categories over the three years from 2023, negating the impact of increased unit sales.

The tariffs were set to rise from July this year, but the State indefinitely froze the new tariffs for fear of triggering public outrage over a high cost of living. The new tariffs were to last for three years, until June 2029.

Increased demand for electricity has upped pressure on Kenya Power, forcing the utility to import more from Ethiopia and Uganda, besides rationing supplies in the evening when demand peaks.

The data shows that imports from Ethiopia grew to 10 percent or 1,584.45 GWh in the year ended June 2026, from 1,268GWh or 8.7 percent a year earlier.

Increased imports from Ethiopia have been key in averting widespread rationing of electricity when demand peaks in the evening, besides cushioning consumers from steep power bills.

For much of the post-Cold War era, globalisation and multilateralism travelled together. Trade expanded, capital moved more freely, supply chains stretched across continents, and international institutions assumed a growing role in managing an increasingly interconnected world.

In the process, the web of linkages between countries and continents became deeper and more complex. Supply chains that were once largely contained within national borders now depend on events unfolding thousands of kilometres away. A political crisis in one country or a drought in a distant region, can affect livelihoods across the world.

Globalisation has led to undeniable benefits. Between 1990 and 2026, nearly 1.5 billion people escaped extreme poverty, even as the global population continued to grow. Greater economic integration has also contributed to lower prices for many traded goods and an unprecedented expansion in the cross-border flow of knowledge, technology and innovation.

But its benefits have not been distributed equally. In many countries, communities experienced greater employment insecurity and income inequality widened even as national economies became wealthier.

The share of total income distributed to workers fell by 1.6 percentage points between 2004 and 2024, due to structural shifts, including automation, globalization and the decline in the bargaining power of workers.

Meanwhile, the number of billionaires worldwide increased from 1,757 in 2015 to 2,919 in 2025, an increase of about 66 percent in just a decade, while their combined wealth rose from $6.3 trillion to $15.8 trillion, an increase of roughly 150 percent. Governments did not always build domestic institutions needed to manage these disruptions.

Social protection, worker retraining and other mechanisms for sharing the gains of economic change did not consistently keep pace with the speed of transformation.

Yet much of the resulting anger has been directed at the international system.

Citizens and their governments are increasingly turning away from the promise of collective solutions and towards a more traditional balance of power: national self-reliance, strategic competition and the balancing of one power against another.

This is particularly consequential for Africa. Despite all its imperfections, multilateralism provides developing states with rules, institutions and collective platforms through which asymmetries of power can be moderated. In a more fragmented and transactional international system, African countries risk increasingly negotiating individually with economic and political powers on profoundly unequal terms.

The consequences extend across many of the continent’s most important strategic interests. On climate change, African countries face some of the most severe consequences despite having contributed relatively little to historical emissions.

Their ability to advocate for adaptation finance and a more equitable distribution of the costs of the climate transition depends heavily on collective action. The same is true of debt, trade, and the growing global competition for critical minerals.

Access to capital is another key example. Developing countries often face significantly higher borrowing costs than advanced economies, limiting their ability to invest in infrastructure, social protection, climate resilience, and economic transformation.

If 94 developing countries could borrow at the same rates as those in developed economies, they could collectively save around $500 billion a year in interest payments. For Africa, the challenge is compounded by perceptions of risk and the way sovereign creditworthiness is assessed.

UNDP has estimated that greater objectivity in sovereign credit ratings could save African countries as much as $74.5 billion through lower interest costs and increased access to financing.

Reforming the international financial architecture – including how risk is assessed, how multilateral development banks deploy their balance sheets, and how affordable long-term finance is made available – therefore cannot be achieved by countries acting alone. It requires collective action and institutions capable of addressing structural inequalities in the global economy.

None of this is to suggest that the multilateral system is beyond criticism. Developing countries remain underrepresented in key areas of global decision-making and perceptions of double standards have eroded confidence in international rules. These failures have contributed to the crisis of trust.

But acknowledging the shortcomings of multilateralism is different from concluding that multilateralism itself is the problem.

Indeed, multilateralism should be judged not against an ideal world, but against the realistic alternative. The alternative to imperfect collective institutions may instead be a more fragmented world in which countries respond separately to problems that cross borders and outcomes are determined increasingly by economic, political and military power.

Kenya’s unclaimed financial assets fund has grown by 8.41 percent (Sh10 billion) in eight months, reflecting a growing trend of citizens losing track of their wealth, as holding companies ramped up reporting compliance to avoid a 25 percent financial penalty.

Latest disclosures by the Unclaimed Financial Assets Authority (Ufaa) show the value of abandoned wealth remitted to the State-owned agency to date surged by Sh9.7 billion to Sh125 billion from Sh115.03 billion in December 2025.

However, only Sh3.12 billion, equivalent to 2.49 percent of the total unclaimed assets remitted (Sh125 billion), has been reunited to the beneficial owners.

Section 33 of the Unclaimed Financial Assets Act (2011) provides that failure to report and surrender qualifying unclaimed financial assets by November 1 of each year attracts penalties and sanctions of 25 percent of the unclaimed financial assets held.

In addition, failure of a holder to willingly and fully report any unclaimed financial assets under their custody renders them liable for a penalty of Sh7,000, but not more than Sh50,000 for each day the report is held.

These dormant assets include forgotten wealth comprising idle bank accounts, uncollected insurance payouts, abandoned shares and dividends, and dormant mobile money accounts.

Faced with heavy penalties for holding onto dormant accounts, commercial banks, listed companies, insurance firms, and telecommunication companies have accelerated their reporting and remittance of the dormant assets.

Ufaa began receiving unclaimed financial assets from holders in 2014 and reuniting them with beneficiaries in 2016.

However, the Auditor General, in a report dated August 2025, says the rate of unification is still significantly low.

Ufaa has lined up a raft of policy changes, including easing penalties and extending the dormancy period, in a bid to mop up idle resources in the country.

The authority is seeking to extend the time listed companies and saccos have to look for the rightful owners of dividends by two years before such assets can be declared abandoned and handed over to the agency.

The Unclaimed Financial Assets (Amendment) Bill proposes that shares and dividends be presumed abandoned after five years, up from the current three years.

Dividends are deemed abandoned when payouts fail to reach intended owners due to outdated contact details, uncashed physical cheques, or inactive bank accounts.

Listed firms and saccos will now have more time to locate the owners of the financial assets before turning them over to Ufaa which has an even harder task of identifying the investors whose details it gets from third parties.

As of June this year, listed companies had submitted Sh5.3 billion to the authority, leaving more than Sh8.5 billion in unclaimed dividends in their books. Saccos had remitted Sh160 million to the authority, leaving them holding Sh16.5 billion worth of unclaimed dividends.

Ufaa is also looking to soften penalties levied on companies that have idle resources in their books to encourage them to voluntarily submit what they are holding.

The Bill proposes a penalty of 25 percent of the value of unremitted assets, a departure from the current law, which has three types of penalties.

Non-compliant companies are charged 25 percent of the unsurrendered unclaimed assets and are levied a penalty of between Sh7,000 and Sh50,000 for each day that the assets stayed before being submitted.

An interest of one percent per month is also charged on the unclaimed assets based on the assumption that the resources were earning the company a return.

Executives of the non-remitting company can also be penalised with a sum of up to Sh 1 million for the non-remittance and could be imprisoned for a period not exceeding a year.

A survey conducted last year showed unclaimed assets valued at Sh394.9 billion are yet to be remitted to Ufaa, which has only received Sh125 billion in shares and cash.

Commercial banks are said to hold the largest share of unremitted assets, at Sh133.8 billion. The manufacturing sector holds Sh24.2 billion in unremitted wages, according to the survey, while universities have Sh8.3 billion associated with caution money deposited with the institutions by first-year students.

The High Court has dismissed an attempt by a supplier to stop the National Bank of Kenya (NBK) and its appointed receiver manager from taking control of a leather-processing business linked to Zingo Investments.

The court ruled that Yobesh Kenya Ontiria, trading as Hillbase General Suppliers, had shown only a contractual claim for Sh26.3 million and no registered security interest capable of overriding the bank’s rights.

NBK, which is owned by Nigeria’s Access Bank Plc after being acquired from KCB Group in May 2025, is pursuing recovery of Sh733 million from the leather processor.

The dispute centres on two Zingo Investments’ properties charged to NBK, which the supplier claimed had also been offered as security for payment of his outstanding debt.

The case pits an alleged unpaid hides-and-skins supplier against a lender seeking to recover a larger debt from Zingo, whose business and assets are under receivership.

Mr Ontiria told the court that he entered into a service agreement with Zingo on February 2, 2004, for the supply of hides and skins. He said Zingo stopped paying him in 2020, leaving Sh26.3 million outstanding.

He claimed Zingo had offered two land parcels as security for payment. He alleged the company failed to disclose that the properties were charged to NBK, saying a company search document obtained during due diligence did not reveal the encumbrance.

In an application dated May 4, 2026, Mr Ontiria sought orders restraining NBK and the receiver-manager from accessing, possessing, managing, selling or disposing of the properties, factory and business.

However, the court found that the alleged business arrangement had not been converted into a registered charge or enforceable proprietary interest.

“The difficulty with the applicant’s case, however, is that no evidence has been placed before the court demonstrating that the alleged security was perfected by the creation and registration of a charge or other proprietary security in its favour,” the court said.

It added that Mr Ontiria was an unsecured creditor whose remedy lies in pursuing the debt against Zingo Investments.

The court also said that Mr Ontiria had not demonstrated ‘any registered or enforceable proprietary interest’ capable of taking priority over NBK’s securities.

According to the court, a monetary claim against Zingo arising from the alleged breach of the service agreement cannot find an injunction restraining a secured creditor from enforcing its registered securities.

NBK opposed the application, relying on registered charges over both properties and several debentures. Its representative said Zingo had persistently defaulted despite acknowledging a debt of $5.6 million (Sh730 million) in a consent recorded in 2017.

The bank said it had issued demands and notices before appointing the receiver under its contractual rights. It argued that the supplier’s unsecured claim could not prevent enforcement of securities held by the lender.

Zingo, through director Robert Njoka, denied concealing the bank’s interest. The company said it was undertaking a technical and forensic audit of its accounts, transactions and obligations.

It maintained that NBK’s facilities secured against the properties had been fully settled and that the assets were unencumbered. The court said that assertion was disputed and could not, at this stage of Mr Ontiria’s case, displace the bank’s registered securities.

The court noted that NBK’s recovery rights had featured in litigation between Zingo and the bank. In March 2024, the court dismissed Zingo’s challenge to recovery efforts, while the Court of Appeal declined to stop enforcement in January 2025.

Although Mr Ontiria was not a party to those proceedings, the court said it had to be cautious about allowing an unsecured creditor to interfere with rights arising from securities litigated previously.

“In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated an apparent legal or equitable right over the suit properties which has been infringed or threatened with infringement by the second defendant (NBK) and third defendant (Receiver Manager),” said the judge.

The court dismissed Mr Ontiria’s application and discharged interim orders restraining NBK and the receiver.

The ruling did not determine whether Zingo owes Hillbase the claimed Sh26.3 million. It also did not conclusively resolve Zingo’s assertion that its banking facilities had been settled.