Category: Business Daily

Kenya’s South Coast regained its dominance in hotel bed-night occupancy along the coastal beaches after three years of trailing its rivals on the back of increased tourism activity.

South Coast had 2.57 million bed nights or nights spent by total guests in a hotel last year, from 590,400 bed nights in 2024, says the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS).

This saw it overtake North Coast, comprising Nyali and Bamburi under the KNBS classification, which had 1.1 million bed nights last year from 2.63 million in 2024.

Hotel bed-night occupancy is one of the key indicators used in the tourism industry to measure demand for accommodation and the overall performance of hospitality facilities.

Unlike simple visitor arrival numbers, bed night occupancy reflects length of stay, seasonality, and capacity use – all critical for hotel revenue forecasting.

South Coast regions of Wasini Island and Diani, which has idyllic palm-fringed beach resorts where the sands are pearl white, the waters clear turquoise.

Offering everything from big game safaris to sandy white beaches, Kenya attracts more than two million international visitors annually from countries such as China, Germany, France and Britain.

Tourism is a vital economic pillar, providing millions with employment and accounting for about 2.8 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

The recovery at the South Coast also helped drive growth in overall coastal occupancy, with the Kilifi, Malindi and Lamu tourism circuit with beaches like Watamu recording an increase from 919,300 bed nights in 2024 to 1.22 million in 2025.

Mombasa Island recorded a drop to 76, 300 bed nights last year from 127 300 in 2024.

Domestic tourists trailed foreigners on hotel occupancy at the Coast, accounting for 5.2 million bed nights out of 11.56 million, underlining the growing role of local tourism in sustaining hotel business.

Among international markets, Italy emerged as the leading foreign source of hotel occupancy with 685,600 bed nights, followed by Germany at 616,200, other European countries at 638,000 and the United Kingdom at 301,300.

Tourism industry players say the rebound in hotel occupancy reflects aggressive destination marketing, improved infrastructure, direct international flights and renewed investments in hospitality facilities along the South Coast.

The sharp increase in bed-night occupancy is expected to support revenues for hotels, restaurants, tour operators and transport businesses that depend heavily on tourism activity.

Mobile phone operators will for the first time face financial penalties and business sanctions for dropped calls and poor internet connection, putting pressure on telecoms firms to upgrade networks.

The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) has proposed new rules that mark a shift from the regulator’s previous approach of issuing warnings and compliance notices for operators in breach.

In draft proposals, the CA is also seeking to raise the minimum performance score for telcos to 90 percent from the current 80 percent, while introducing quarterly penalties for non-compliance.

The new compliance standards look set to trigger fresh investments for a sector that has splashed billions of shillings in network upgrades, notably on 4G and 5G.

The CA evaluates mobile operators on parameters like dropped calls, delayed calls, internet browsing speeds, failed messages, and interruptions during use.

‘A licensee will be deemed compliant if they attain an aggregate of 90 percent or above. In the event of failure by a licensee, penalties and/or other sanctions will be applied per county and rollout obligations on a quarterly, or as may be varied from time to time in accordance with the Act,’ said the CA.

The regulator has in the past fingered Airtel Kenya and Telkom Kenya for weak performance on call quality, network accessibility and internet connectivity but stopped short of imposing direct sanctions.

In the latest assessment for the year ended June 2025, Airtel and Telkom posted declines in the overall quality of service score.

Airtel dropped to 81.14 percent from 83.3 percent a year earlier, but remained above the CA quality market.

Telkom fell to 52.76 percent from 67.6 percent in the period under review, keeping it below the set regulatory quality level.

Safaricom, on the other hand, recorded a marginal improvement, posting a score of 89.72 percent compared to 88.1 percent the previous year.

Previous regulatory quality audits flagged the operators over dropped calls, poor voice clarity, low internet speeds and inconsistent service availability in several counties, especially in rural settings.

Under the CA’s proposed rules, sanctions will be applied at the county level, meaning operators could face penalties in specific regions even if their national network performance remains above the required average score.

That county-based enforcement model is set to significantly increase compliance pressure in remote and underserved regions where network congestion, weak coverage and unstable internet connectivity remain persistent consumer complaints.

Previous quality assessments by the regulator showed major disparities between urban and rural counties, with regions outside Nairobi and major towns recording weaker performance on internet and voice services.

Industry players have historically argued that maintaining consistent service quality nationwide remains difficult because of rising infrastructure costs, vandalism, electricity disruptions and uneven returns from rural investments.

The tougher enforcement by the CA reflects growing concern over the widening gap between Kenya’s rapid growth in mobile data consumption and the quality of services delivered to consumers across the country.

Kenya’s digital economy has expanded significantly over the past decade, increasing dependence on stable mobile broadband services.

Millions of Kenyans now rely on mobile internet for services such as banking, online learning, remote work and digital commerce, raising the economic cost of unstable network performance and dropped connections.

Consumer complaints over mobile network performance have, nevertheless, continued rising as internet demand surges faster than infrastructure expansion, particularly during peak traffic hours in densely populated urban centres.

Under the fresh rules, the regulatory agency is introducing technical measurements covering aspects such as call setup success, latency, data throughput, dropped calls as well as customer experience performance.

Voice services will account for half of the overall compliance score while mobile data quality will contribute 45 percent under the new evaluation model.

The regulator is also proposing stricter technical standards across emerging technologies, including tighter controls for 4G and standalone 5G network performance.

For instance, standalone 5G networks will be required to maintain latency levels below 10 milliseconds, reflecting growing demand for high-speed and low-delay digital services.

The proposals come as Kenya’s telecoms sector enters a new infrastructure cycle driven by aggressive 5G rollout, rising smartphone penetration and surging data consumption by businesses and households.

Operators have in recent years invested heavily in fibre backhaul expansion, additional spectrum deployment and tower densification to support growing traffic demand across mobile networks.

Safaricom and Airtel have aggressively expanded their 5G footprints nationally, while also accelerating broader 4G expansion and cheaper data packages targeting mass-market subscribers.

Safaricom remains the dominant telecommunications player while Airtel Kenya has aggressively expanded market share through lower pricing and heightened competition in mobile data services.

Telkom Kenya, on the other hand, continues to face infrastructure and market competitiveness challenges as fresh investment lags and rivals race to meet rising demand for faster and more stable connectivity nationwide.

A long-running dispute between agribusiness firm Kakuzi Plc and the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) has escalated to the Court of Appeal, pitting the company’s board of directors against the market regulator in a case that could have far-reaching implications for listed firms.

The matter was heard this week as parties await directions from the higher court. Kakuzi moved to the appellate court after the High Court declined to stop CMA’s inquiry into Kakuzi’s affairs. The company is now seeking orders to preserve the status quo pending determination of its appeal.

The parties had in April explored an amicable settlement, raising hopes of ending a legal battle that has dragged on for years.

At the heart of the conflict is CMA’s investigation into alleged conflicts of interest and financial impropriety involving management and operational service agreements between Kakuzi and several related companies within the Camellia Plc.

Kakuzi directors insist that they have provided all information requested by the regulator and question why the inquiry continues despite extensive disclosures. CMA, on the other hand, maintains that it is lawfully exercising its statutory mandate to investigate matters arising from a complaint lodged against the company.

The outcome of the case is being closely watched in corporate circles because the arrangements under scrutiny are common among multinational groups operating through listed companies. Any adverse findings could have implications for governance practices across firms listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange.

Read: Kakuzi directors escalate fight with markets regulator over probe plans

Origin of the inquiry

The investigation traces its roots to a summons issued by CMA on June 14, 2021, seeking information relating to Kakuzi’s governance assessment and audit for the 2019 financial year.

The regulator said the inquiry was triggered by a complaint and sought information regarding governance structures, related-party transactions and management arrangements.

Particular attention was directed at Management and Operational Services Agreements signed on December 11, 2017 between Kakuzi and Robertson Bois Dickson Anderson Limited, as well as agreements involving Eastern Produce Regional Services Limited.

The companies, together with Kakuzi, are subsidiaries of Camellia Plc, a British investment group with interests in agriculture and food production.

The regulator also sought to examine Kakuzi’s dealings with related entities, including Eastern Produce Kenya Limited, EPK Empowerment Company (Kenya) Limited, Lintak Enterprises (K) Limited, Linton Park (Kenya) Limited and Siret Tea Limited.

As the inquiry progressed, CMA summoned Kakuzi directors for interviews scheduled between September 12 and 16, 2022.

Through their lawyers, the directors objected, arguing that they had not been informed of the specific allegations against them. They maintained that the summons failed to disclose the nature of the alleged conflict of interest or particulars of the alleged financial impropriety.

Invoking Article 47 of the Constitution and provisions of the Fair Administrative Action Act, the directors demanded disclosure of the allegations before the interviews could proceed.

CMA responded on September 7, 2022, insisting that the summons sufficiently disclosed the matters under investigation. Further exchanges followed, with the directors seeking collective rather than individual interviews and requesting fresh interview dates.

Eventually, the entire board appeared before CMA investigators on November 9, 2022.

Corporate governance report sparks disagreement

A major point of contention emerged after CMA completed its assessment of Kakuzi’s corporate governance self-assessment report for the year ended December 31, 2021.

The regulator awarded the company an overall weighted governance score of 72 percent and stated that Kakuzi had demonstrated commitment to good governance and sustainability. CMA commended the company for strengthening governance structures while recommending areas for improvement.

To Kakuzi, that assessment effectively addressed the concerns underlying the inquiry.

The directors argued that the same issues being investigated had already been examined by the regulator.

They contended that continuing with the inquiry after issuing a favourable governance assessment amounted to revisiting matters already determined.

Their lawyers wrote to CMA in November 2022 asserting that the investigation could not lawfully continue because the issues had effectively been addressed through the governance review.

The directors have consistently maintained that they have answered all questions raised by the regulator. They have repeatedly challenged CMA to identify the alleged irregular payments, specify any financial loss suffered, and explain why information already supplied is considered insufficient.

CMA rejected that position.

In a letter dated December 2, 2022, the regulator stated that the governance assessment and the inquiry were separate processes serving different purposes.

According to CMA, although the two processes touched on similar subject matter, they addressed distinct issues. The regulator further maintained that section 11(3)(h) of the Capital Markets Act grants it authority to investigate the affairs of entities approved to issue securities to the public.

Read: Court allows CMA to probe eight directors of Kakuzi

CMA insisted that its investigations were ongoing and that the summons issued to Kakuzi’s directors were lawful and necessary to facilitate those investigations.

Tribunal and High Court reject challenge

The dispute remained unresolved for an extended period, partly because the Capital Markets Tribunal had not been constituted.

Once operational, the tribunal heard the matter and on September 19, 2024 dismissed the directors’ appeal.

The tribunal found that CMA’s investigations were still ongoing and that no final decision had been made against the directors.

‘We agree with the respondent’s submissions that the investigations being done were inquisitorial in nature, and it is only after notice that adverse action is likely to be taken that the appellants’ position to be furnished with reasons and particulars would hold. The appellants moved this tribunal prematurely,’ the tribunal ruled.

Undeterred, the directors moved to the High Court.

However, on September 30, 2025, the court upheld the tribunal’s decision, finding that the directors had failed to demonstrate any violation of their constitutional rights that would justify judicial intervention.

The court held that CMA was merely conducting an inquiry and that the company and its directors would be informed of any developments arising from the process. If wrongdoing was eventually established, the regulator would communicate its decision formally.

‘The appellants’ actions also seem to be premature. As such, the contention is for rejection,’ the court ruled.

Appeal focuses on fair hearing rights

The dispute has now reached the Court of Appeal, where eight directors are challenging both the tribunal and High Court decisions.

Their principal complaint is that CMA has refused to disclose the particulars of the alleged financial impropriety and the nature of complaints made by third parties.

The directors argue that the Constitution guarantees them a fair hearing, which includes access to the allegations, evidence and materials relied upon by the regulator.

They fault the courts for concluding that no constitutional violations had occurred and maintain that they were entitled to know precisely what accusations they were being required to answer.

According to Kakuzi, the regulator has never adequately explained what was improper about payments made under the service agreements or why responses already submitted were deemed insufficient.

The company also defends the service arrangements under investigation.

Chief executive officer Christopher Flowers told the courts that Eastern Produce Regional Services provides substantial management, finance, information technology and marketing services to Kakuzi at reasonable cost. The arrangement, he said, allows specialised services to be shared across Camellia group companies, generating operational efficiencies.

Mr Flowers also confirmed that he serves as a director of several companies in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania. However, he denied any conflict of interest, stating that the companies do not compete each other and that he holds no shareholding interests in them.

As the appeal proceeds, the central question remains unresolved: whether CMA is entitled to continue its investigations without providing the detailed particulars sought by Kakuzi’s directors, or whether constitutional fair-hearing guarantees require fuller disclosure before the inquiry can advance further.

The answer could define the balance between regulatory oversight and procedural fairness for listed companies for years to come

Former Consolidated Bank of Kenya CEO Samuel Muturi has lost his bid for reappointment after Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi blocked the bank board from giving him a fresh three-year term, sparking a legal battle.

Mr Muturi had sued the bank, alongside Mr Mbadi and acting CEO Dominic Murage, seeking either a fresh term based on the board’s favourable recommendation or damages and reliefs of at least Sh76.35 million.

However, the Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed Mr Muturi’s petition, finding that his three-year contract, which lapsed in October 2025, did not confer an automatic right to renewal despite a positive performance record and recommendation by the bank’s board.

In the judgment, the court held that the renewal of a CEO’s contract in a State corporation is not solely a board decision but is subject to concurrence by the parent ministry-in this case, the Treasury.

The court also upheld the appointment of Dr Murage as the acting CEO following the expiry of Mr Muturi’s term, terming it a lawful and necessary step to ensure continuity of the bank’s operations.

‘The court holds that the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. The contract ended by effluxion of time, and the Cabinet Secretary was not bound by the recommendations of the board on the extension of the contract,’ reads the judgment delivered on May 15.

Before tapping Mr Muturi’s replacement on October 8, the Treasury Cabinet Secretary fired three directors on October 3 after they insisted on Mr Muturi’s second term and rejected the push for the recruitment of a new CEO. Mr Mbadi advised the remaining two of the seven directors to hire Dr Murage, a lecturer at the University of Nairobi, as acting CEO.

Dr Murage’s appointment came days after he stepped down in the race for the Mbeere North parliamentary seat in a by-election in favour of the candidate of President William Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA). The appointment of Dr Murage came as his brother, Charles Njagagua, was removed as chairman of Consolidated Bank.

Mr Mbadi appointed Dr Murage pending certification by the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK), sparking a row with the regulator. The CBK argued that the lender had breached its rules that demand executives pass a fit and proper test before their appointment.

In the May 15 judgement, the court also declined to award Mr Muturi damages equivalent to three years’ salary, with the judge noting that non-renewal of a fixed-term contract does not amount to unfair termination and does not require justification unless expressly provided in law or contract.

‘The remedy sought is not legally tenable. The remuneration of an employee is contractual and in the instant case, the contract was for three years. There is no employer obligation beyond the contract,’ said the judge.

Mr Muturi had argued that he met all the requirements for reappointment, including applying for renewal six months before the expiry of his term and attaining favourable performance ratings from both the State Corporations Advisory Committee and the bank’s board.

The board had subsequently recommended his reappointment for a further three-year term, citing improved financial performance at the lender during his tenure.

However, Mr Mbadi declined to approve the renewal and instead directed the bank to begin the process of recruiting a new CEO, even as Dr Murage was picked as the acting CEO. Dr Murage, a financial scholar and lecturer, was seconded from the University of Nairobi.

Read: Mbadi wins in row over Consolidated Bank’s CEO ouster

In a meeting held in September, four of the six directors opted to challenge the Cabinet Secretary’s decision and insisted on Mr Muturi.

However, the former chairman, Mr Njagagua, and Jane Njogu (Treasury’s representative on the bank’s board) sided with Mr Mbadi.

In a letter dated September 17, the Cabinet Secretary acknowledged receiving a letter signed by four directors requesting extension of the CEO’s contract but insisted on ending Mr Muturi’s term.

On October 3, Mr Mbadi revoked the appointment of three of the four directors who had signed the letter, save for Florence Oluoch, who had been appointed in November last year. President Ruto revoked Mr Njagagua’s chairmanship on the same day, leaving the bank without a substantive board.

In rejecting Mr Muturi’s petition to be given a fresh term, the court found that a fixed-term contract lapses automatically upon expiry and does not create a legitimate expectation of renewal.

The judge further ruled that a positive performance appraisal and board recommendation, while relevant, do not amount to an enforceable legal right to contract renewal without approval from the relevant authorities.

Mr Muturi had also challenged the Treasury’s role, arguing that the power to appoint or reappoint a CEO rests exclusively with the board under governance guidelines. The Treasury holds a 93.4 percent stake in the lender and the remainder is in the hands of other State institutions.

However, the respondents (Dr Murage, Mr Mbadi and the bank) maintained that under the State Corporations Act and applicable governance framework, the Cabinet Secretary’s concurrence is mandatory, given the government’s ownership and oversight role in the bank.

The court agreed with the position, effectively affirming the Treasury’s influence over leadership decisions in State-owned entities.

Consolidated Bank posted a net profit of Sh198.18 million at the end of last year, emerging from a net loss of Sh155.22 million in the previous year. The latest profit is the first one in 11 years, with the previous net profit coming in 2014 at Sh44.42 million.

The Finance Bill 2026 has now moved beyond the public participation stage, which officially closed on May 25. The Bill is currently under parliamentary scrutiny, with legislators reviewing submissions received from wananchi and stakeholders.

While the window for public input has ended, this phase remains critical: Parliament must weigh the diverse perspectives presented, separate fact from misinformation, and ensure that the final provisions align with Kenya’s economic priorities and social realities.

Misinterpretations of the Bill’s clauses have already fueled anxiety among Kenyans, underscoring the importance of Parliament’s responsibility to deliberate transparently and base decisions on accurate information.

One common misconception is that the bill automatically makes life more expensive for everyone. In reality, the Finance Bill contains a mix of proposals, some that adjust tax rates, others that restructure compliance timelines, and still others that redefine exemptions.

The impact of these changes will vary across sectors and individuals. For example, proposals touching on mobile phones, digital financial services, rental income, and second-hand clothing have been widely discussed, but the details are often misrepresented.

Kenyans should note that while these areas are indeed affected, the bill does not simply impose blanket increases; rather, it introduces specific adjustments that need to be understood in context.

Another area of misinformation relates to electric vehicles and batteries. Some reports have suggested that the bill removes all incentives for green mobility. In fact, the proposal shifts these items from zero-rated to VAT-exempt status.

While this change has technical implications for pricing, it does not mean that Kenya has abandoned its environmental commitments. Similarly, introduction of new rules for cryptocurrency and virtual assets has been misinterpreted as a ban.

The bill does not outlaw digital assets; instead, it seeks to regulate them through taxation and reporting requirements, a move aimed at bringing clarity to a growing sector.

There has also been confusion around compliance timelines. The proposal to move the income tax filing deadline from June 30 to April 30 has been described by some as a punitive measure.

In truth, the adjustment is intended to streamline revenue collection and align Kenya’s tax calendar more closely with international standards. Whether this change is practical or not is a matter for debate, but it is not accurate to portray it as a sudden or arbitrary burden.

Mitumba trade has generated significant public concern, with claims that the bill seeks to eliminate second-hand clothing altogether. This is not the case. The proposal introduces VAT at importation and a presumptive tax on customs value, measures that affect pricing but do not amount to a ban.

Traders and consumers should, therefore, focus on understanding how these changes will be implemented, rather than assuming the sector will be shut.

What is clear is that misinformation thrives when citizens rely on hearsay rather than engaging directly with the text of the bill. The Finance Bill 2026 is a complex document, and its implications cannot be reduced to simple slogans.

This is why public participation is so important. Citizens must read, question, and scrutinise the proposals for themselves, uncovering the fine print that may otherwise pass unnoticed. By doing so, they can separate fact from speculation and contribute meaningfully to the debate.

Ultimately, the Finance Bill 2026 should be seen as an opportunity for dialogue between government and citizens. It is not a finished product but a draft open to refinement.

The responsibility lies with every Kenyan to engage constructively, to seek clarity where confusion exists, and to ensure that the final law reflects both fiscal responsibility and social realities. Dispelling misinformation is the first step toward that goal, and it is only through informed scrutiny that citizens can be content with the bill and confident in its outcomes.

“We’re all just muddling through, after all. We’re all just doing the best we can. We’re all struggling with our struggles. Nobody has the answers. And everybody, deep down, is a little bit lost,” said Katherine Center.

How does your organisation really work? In delighting the customer, does the operational and financial data just flow in, magically showing stunning performance on a colourful Power BI dashboard? Perfectly planned, is everyone in sync, engaged, fired up, certain they are doing the right thing, working in faultless harmony?

The reality of the corporate world is that most companies survive not through flawless, visionary execution, but by muddling through. Daily operations are more trial and error, reacting to crises, and managing internal friction, rather than operating with perfect, long-term strategic clarity.

Awareness and early detection

No, not every company is meant to live forever. Inevitably, creative destruction, survival of the fittest, happens. But often an early corporate death can be stopped by a health check asking different questions, and rethinking fundamental assumptions.

Helps to be aware, looking out for the warning signs. Behind the hype, all the polished public relations and mission statements, there is a messy reality that shows up in several ways.

In the beginning, one starts with relentless hustle and an insightful core idea. But as the months and years go by, as companies scale, they often fail to upgrade their thinking and systems.

What worked once, the founder’s hands-on approach can become a roadblock, forcing staff to just ‘figure it out’ as they go. ‘Disjointed incrementalism, the fancy term for flying by the seat of your pants, becomes standard operating procedure.

Being simple in design is difficult; being complex and confusing is easy. Often, companies try to manage complexity by adding layers of bureaucracy, meetings, and processes. The result is ‘approval theatre’ where the system stresses control over traction, and true progress gets bogged down.

Slow downhill descent

In the business history of Kenya and East Africa, rarely does a major company collapse in a single, dramatic moment. Instead, they manage failure quietly, slowly downsizing, restructuring, or pivoting, suggesting that each is a carefully thought-out, deliberate move.

Muddling through is a remarkably resilient approach, but with time, it drains staff energy and makes the business highly vulnerable to sudden shifts in the market.

No company announces its decline outright. There is never a corporate communication that says: “We miscalculated, the model doesn’t work, and we’re running out of options.” Instead, failing organisations communicate in subtler ways.

Like the decline and fall of the Roman empire-that happened over centuries-deterioration shows up quietly in odd decisions, behaviour shifts, and the quiet contradictions between ‘what they say and what they do’.

Helps to start to recognise the signs. Not the dramatic collapses, but the slow erosion that trickles down. When a business is failing, senior management will generally insist everything is fine.

Fear of being wrong, being afraid of risking stepping out of line, deleting institutional memory, and slowness in responding are all warning signals. Nothing wrong with having a long-term vision. But when the stress is on some heavenly future, rather than down to earth tangible results, that is a red flag.

Bold move or buying time?

One indicator may be that they start changing the rules. “One of the earliest signs of trouble is constant restructuring disguised as ‘evolution’. Pricing models change. Compensation shifts.

Core features are removed, paywalled, or quietly deprioritised. What was once positioned as the heart of the product is suddenly optional, deprecated, or reframed as a ‘test’. Users and workers are asked to adapt-again- often with little notice and even less explanation.

These changes are rarely presented as corrections. They’re labelled bold moves, strategic realignments, or exciting new directions. When a company keeps rewriting the rules instead of improving the system, it’s usually not innovating. It’s buying time and shifting the cost of that uncertainty onto the people who rely on it, advises Christine Lorelie.

“Healthy businesses talk about outcomes. Failing ones talk about potential. When performance starts slipping, the language shifts. Conversations move away from measurable results and toward mission statements, values, community, and long-term impact. These things are important, but they’re also conveniently abstract. Vision becomes something to hide behind when the numbers no longer speak for themselves,” says Lorelie.

‘Muddling through’ was formalised as a term and theory by the economist and political scientist Charles Lindblom in a seminal 1959 paper, The Science of Muddling Through.

Lindblom observed that in practice, incremental decision-making was the rule in the US government bureaucracy. Instead of making massive, perfectly planned reforms, public policy makers and organisations make small, step-by-step policy adjustments in response to immediate problems. What really happens is the act of solving problems pragmatically as they come, rather than executing a flawless long-term strategy.

Muddling through is a popular item on the management menu, but a constant daily diet isn’t healthy. What’s the treatment? Astute advice comes from Melinda French Gates: “The most important thing you can do is keep learning and stay open to change.”

Electric motorcycle assembler Spiro has acquired UK engineering and design firm Coexlion for an undisclosed amount as the company plans to set up its first African research and development (R and D) centre in Nairobi.

A technology company’s R and D centre is an innovation hub where engineers, scientists and researchers develop new technologies, build prototypes and improve software and hardware products for commercial use.

Through the deal, Spiro seeks to boost its ability to design, develop and manufacture electric motorcycles tailored to African road conditions, rider usage patterns and customer requirements.

Kenya’s EV research and development remains limited despite the country’s growing electric vehicle adoption, driven largely by the electric motorcycle uptake.

The country remains primarily an assembly and testing hub, relying heavily on imported tech and technology transfers rather than original R and D.

Local ambition

‘Our ambition is not only to manufacture in Africa, but also to progressively own and develop the engineering, design, and product capabilities behind our vehicles,’ Spiro’s founder, Gagan Gupta, said in a statement.

Coexlion, which is registered in the UK and has operations in India and Kenya, specialises in electric two-wheelers, chassis and frame development, vehicle integration, reliability engineering, battery systems and industrial design.

The firm’s clients include Ather Energy and Ola Electric, two of India’s largest electric two-wheeler makers.

‘Thanks to this acquisition, Spiro will soon open its first African R and D centre in Kenya,’ Mr Gupta said. He did not provide further details on when the research centre will be built or the partners involved.

Local research and development helps technology companies accelerate product development cycles and improve component localisation.

Read: Why companies are going for private debt in capital hunt

EV ecosystem

Spiro said the acquisition would help it build most of its technology, design and manufacturing capability in-house and within Africa.

Founded in 2022, Spiro is a subsidiary of Dubai-based investment vehicle Equitane and has its operational headquarters in Nairobi.

The company operates in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, Togo and Benin, where most of its motorcycles are used commercially by taxi riders, commonly known as boda bodas.

The bikes are assembled from knockdown kits imported from China, with some spare parts sourced from India.

Its Nairobi assembly plant has an annual production capacity of up to 50,000 electric motorcycles.

Spiro says it has more than 100,000 electric motorcycles on African roads and operates over 2,500 battery-swapping stations across its markets, making it the continent’s largest electric motorcycle provider.

Innovation gap

Data from the Electric Mobility Association of Kenya (EMAK) shows the country had 14,570 registered electric vehicles by the close of 2024, most of them electric motorcycles (8,097).

Still, Kenyan EV firms remain heavily reliant on imported technologies such as batteries and motors, primarily from China and other Asian markets.

This contrasts with more developed EV markets such as China, the US and the EU, which have dedicated labs and multi-university automotive research consortia developed in partnership with vehicle manufacturers.

Only a few vehicle companies in Kenya, such as Subaru and Spiro rival Arc Ride, have begun partnering with local universities to advance EV research and battery management systems.

Lawyers and the Judiciary are locked in a fight over the role of non-advocate court-backed mediators in settling cases amid fears that the expanding mediation is shrinking traditional legal work and income for attorneys.

At the centre of the dispute are allegations of unregulated advertising of mediation services by non-advocate mediators, transparency in case allocation, mediator accreditation, remuneration, and competence.

This is compounded by fears that mediators are gradually taking over legal work traditionally handled by lawyers, especially those who specialized in commercial, land and property disputes.

Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) is the Judiciary’s alternative dispute resolution programme designed to settle disputes outside lengthy court hearings, reduce case backlog and preserve relationships, and it has resolved disputes worth Sh52.2 billion since its launch in 2016.

Following the tension, the Judiciary and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) have now entered urgent negotiations to contain the conflict and prevent disruptions to the fast-growing mediation programme.

The tension escalated recently after sections of advocates, particularly in Nairobi, threatened to boycott judicial directions requiring their clients to participate in mediation proceedings led by individuals without legal training.

The lawyers argued that the Judiciary was enabling non-lawyers to encroach on legal practice through mediation. They cited the Advocates Act, which bars persons without practising certificates from practising law. They framed the issue as a “Judiciary-aided infiltration” of their profession.

The standoff forced the Judiciary Steering Committee on Mediation and the LSK into negotiations that culminated in a joint communiqué signed at Milimani Law Courts.

In the document, the two institutions acknowledged growing complaints from advocates over mediator competence, ethical standards, accreditation delays, remuneration and transparency in the allocation of cases.

The Judiciary and the LSK also agreed to investigate allegations involving misuse of Judiciary logos and unregulated advertising by non-advocate mediators.

The concerns have intensified as mediation increasingly handles high-value commercial, family, succession and land disputes that traditionally generated substantial legal fees for advocates through court proceedings.

At the centre of the silent turf war is the Judiciary’s payment system for mediators and growing anxiety among unemployed and underemployed lawyers over shrinking opportunities within traditional litigation practice.

Under the Court-Annexed Mediation programme, the Judiciary pays mediators a flat Sh20,000 per case regardless of the value of the dispute or property involved.

Each mediation matter is expected to be concluded within 60 days, making the process significantly faster than ordinary litigation which can take years.

Cases are allocated through an online Judiciary system, although parties remain free to mutually select their preferred mediator.

Some mediators currently serve up to six court stations due to growing demand for mediation services across the country.

There are at least 1,515 accredited mediators nationwide following the expansion of mediation services to all 47 counties and more than 100 court stations and sub-registries.

The mediation programme currently covers the High Court, Magistrates Courts, Kadhi Courts, Small Claims Courts, the Employment and Labour Relations Court, the Environment and Land Court, the Court of Appeal and several tribunals.

The joint communiqué reveals the extent of institutional concern over how the mediation system is operating.

The Judiciary and the LSK agreed to strengthen oversight mechanisms, tighten regulation of mediators and improve transparency in the screening, allocation and referral of cases under CAM.

‘We resolve to develop and implement a mechanism to collect and analyse mediation payment practices to ensure fairness, transparency, and timely remuneration for mediators particularly addressing concerns raised by advocate mediators,’ the communiqué states.

The two institutions further resolved to strengthen regulation, accreditation and oversight of mediators operating within the CAM framework in order to uphold professional integrity and public confidence in mediation services.

‘This will also entail investigating allegations of misuse of Judiciary logos and unregulated advertising by non-advocate mediators and enforcing regulatory compliance,’ the communiqué says.

The Judiciary and the LSK also pledged to work with the Attorney-General’s office to develop new Alternative Dispute Resolution legislation and policy aimed at strengthening mediation practice.

A technical committee comprising representatives from both institutions is expected to develop an action plan and report back within 45 days.

But mediators insist they are being unfairly targeted by sections of the legal profession resisting structural changes within the justice system.

Mr James Mutitu, a mediator, said mediators do not compete with lawyers because their role is limited to helping parties reach amicable settlements.

‘We get cases from the Judiciary, not from lawyers. Cases are allocated by the Judiciary. It is also a choice for parties in a dispute to submit themselves to mediation,’ he said.

Mr Mutitu defended the participation of non-lawyers in mediation, arguing that dispute resolution requires negotiation and reconciliation skills rather than legal training.

‘To be a mediator you do not need to be a lawyer or have legal training. You need skills to bring people together, create harmony and resolve disputes,’ he said.

‘As mediators, we have no beef with lawyers. Lawyers should accommodate mediators within the mediation framework and rules.’

Chief Justice Martha Koome has consistently defended mediation as a critical pillar of justice reform, arguing that traditional litigation alone cannot address mounting case backlog and delayed justice.

Judiciary data shows the mediation programme has restored more than 8,115 relationships between disputing families and resolved thousands of disputes that had remained in court for years.

The Judiciary says mediation also provides confidentiality, flexibility and preservation of relationships because parties negotiate settlements outside adversarial courtroom battles.

The latest negotiations between the Judiciary and the LSK now highlight the delicate balancing act facing Kenya’s justice system as mediation expands while lawyers push to protect the boundaries of legal practice.

Can a bank help a farmer bounce back after a drought or a shopkeeper reopen quickly after a flood? It can – and it should. Climate change is now part of everyday banking in Kenya, but the story is not about blanket price increases. It is about smarter decisions, better products and support that keeps customers resilient.

Climate risk sits in two main categories: physical and transition. Physical risk has two faces. Acute shocks such as floods, storms and heatwaves cause sudden damage and disrupt cash flows.

Chronic shifts such as rising temperatures, sea-level rise and prolonged droughts slowly erode asset values and productivity. Transition risk is different. It arises from changes in policy, markets and technology as the world moves toward a lower-carbon economy.

Kenya is already feeling the strain, and so are our neighbours. Drought across arid and semi-arid counties has stressed farm incomes and agri-processors. Flooding along river basins and in urban areas has damaged homes and businesses, weakening collateral and disrupting trade.

Regulators and markets are responding. The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) issued guidance on climate risk management and is steering clearer disclosure and green finance. Supervisors across East Africa are moving in the same direction.

International lenders and investors increasingly favour banks that show strong climate-risk practices. Those who get ahead will find it easier to access capital and defend margins.

Treat climate risks like any other part of lending. Look at which sectors and places have been hit by floods or droughts before, check missed payments and changed loan terms after those events, and spread risk so you’re not too exposed in one area. Keep pricing fair – make sure the way you value collateral reflects location and resilience.

How banks value collateral can help customers prepare and recover. If a valuation flags flood risk, the bank can offer advice and finance for practical fixes – drainage, raised floors, stronger roofs or backup power.

When customers make these upgrades, lenders can reflect the lower risk with better terms, longer loan periods or lighter collateral, and after severe weather the same information can support grace periods or quick repair loans, so businesses reopen sooner.

Valuations should be guided by location and resilience, with clear notes on site, hazards, building quality and energy performance, so lenders and borrowers share the same facts and plan improvements.

Forward-looking analysis is about readiness, not alarm. Banks already use scenarios to test portfolios under different economic paths.

Adding climate-related assumptions – lower yields in droughts, higher operating costs in heatwaves, temporary closures after storms – helps management plan cushions and contingency actions. That planning supports steady lending through tough periods and avoids sudden tightening when customers need credit most.

Governance turns good intentions into daily practice. Clear ownership keeps climate risk on the agendas of credit committees and balance sheet discussions. The three lines of defence make this work.

The first line – front-line business teams in lending, pricing, collections and collateral – own the risk day to day and build climate factors into origination and monitoring.

The second line – risk and compliance – sets policy, limits and controls, measures exposure by sector and geography, and challenges decisions when concentrations grow.

The third line – internal audit – provides independent assurance, testing whether policies are applied, models and assumptions are fit for purpose, and reporting gaps are closed.

There is real upside. Demand is growing for energy-efficient mortgages, climate-smart agriculture finance and clean-energy assets such as solar mini-grids. Partnerships with insurers, development banks and guarantee schemes can share risk and reduce overall borrowing costs.

Climate change will keep testing Kenya’s financial system, but a strategic approach turns risk into resilience. Banks that act now – by integrating physical and transition risks into credit, pricing, collateral and capital decisions – will support customers, safeguard profitability and stay competitive.

That is not about alarm. It is about smarter banking that helps households and businesses weather the next storm and thrive the day after.

The recent comedian and businessman Sammy Kioko dispute with Machakos County has once again exposed a dangerous but deeply entrenched problem within Kenya’s devolved governance system: counties entering into contracts without the financial capacity to honour them.

While public attention often focuses on individual disputes between counties and suppliers, the broader issue is systemic. Counties continue to accumulate billions of shillings in pending bills owed to contractors, consultants, and small businesses that have delivered goods and services. This is no longer an accounting issue. It is becoming a governance, economic, and credibility crisis.

As of June 30, 2025, county governments collectively reported approximately Sh183 billion in pending bills. Of this amount, Sh130.8 billion relates to recurrent expenditure while Sh52.2 billion is tied to development projects.

Nairobi County alone accounts for more than Sh86.8 billion in outstanding obligations, with counties such as Kilifi, Machakos, and Kiambu also carrying significant debt burdens.

Behind these numbers are real businesses and livelihoods.

Thousands of small businesses, consultants, contractors, and service providers continue to suffer because counties delay or fail to honour payment obligations. Many of these businesses take loans, mobilise workers, purchase materials, and commit operational resources based on signed county contracts.

When payments delay for months or years, businesses experience cash flow crises, layoffs, loan defaults, and in many cases collapse entirely. Families suffer, jobs disappear, and investor confidence weakens.

The ripple effect extends beyond suppliers. Delayed county payments weaken local economies, affect banking sector exposure, discourage investment in public projects, and erode trust in government procurement systems. What is particularly worrying is that this problem has persisted since the onset of devolution in 2013.

Every election cycle introduces new county administrations, but the financial culture often remains unchanged. Incoming governments inherit pending bills from previous administrations while simultaneously launching new projects and issuing fresh tenders. As a result, liabilities continue to grow faster than counties can realistically settle them.

At the centre of this crisis is poor and, in some cases, careless financial planning.

Many counties issue tenders without having adequate cash reserves, secured financing, or realistic visibility on where the money will come from. Procurement commitments are often made ahead of actual revenue availability or lawful appropriation.

In simple terms, counties are spending money they do not yet have.

This undermines the principles of prudent public finance management under the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act, which require public expenditure to be anchored on approved budgets and lawful appropriations.

Counties should, therefore, only enter into contracts that are fully supported by budget allocations and realistic revenue projections.

Yet political pressure to launch visible projects, satisfy competing interests, or demonstrate development progress often overrides fiscal discipline. Counties end up prioritising political optics over financial sustainability.

The result is predictable: ballooning pending bills, stalled projects, court battles, and financial distress for businesses.

The Senate Committee on County Public Accounts and Investments has already raised alarm over the growing backlog of pending bills and directed counties to prioritise debt settlement before initiating new expenditures. Some legislators have even proposed freezing new county projects in the 2026/2027 financial year until outstanding obligations are addressed.

These conversations are necessary, but Kenya now requires stronger and more enforceable reforms.

First, county procurement must be strictly tied to approved budgets and appropriation laws. Counties should be prohibited from issuing tenders or signing contracts unless funding has already been secured and legally appropriated.

Second, accounting officers who commit counties to unfunded expenditures should face personal accountability under public finance laws. There must be consequences for reckless financial commitments that expose taxpayers and businesses to avoidable losses.

Third, counties should adopt transparent procurement and payment tracking systems that allow suppliers and oversight institutions to monitor project commitments and payment status in real time.

Most importantly, Kenya must institutionalise a culture of fiscal discipline within devolved governance.

Devolution was created to accelerate development and bring services closer to wananchi. But without responsible financial management, it risks becoming a cycle of unsustainable debt, incomplete projects, and broken trust between government and the private sector.

The Kioko matter should therefore not be viewed as an isolated incident. It is a warning sign of a much larger structural problem that demands urgent attention.

If county governments are serious about supporting local businesses, protecting taxpayers, and restoring confidence in public procurement, then the principle must be clear:

Counties should only contract within approved budgets and available resources.

In public finance, as in business, there should be one guiding rule: No budget, no contract.