Category: Business Daily

Airtel Africa is winding up its Kenyan wholesale internet and fibre-optic subsidiary, two years after it was set up amid struggles to turn a profit.

The Registrar of Companies revealed that the Airtel subsidiary, known as Airtel Kenya Telesonic, would be struck off the register by December 2026, following a request by the telco.

Airtel Kenya Telesonic filed a notice to surrender its Network Facilities Provider Tier 2 (NFPT2) licence to the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) at the end of 2025.

The exit application came as the subsidiary reported a net loss of Sh16.1 million in the year ended December 2025, up from Sh2.9 million the previous year when it was launched. The CA approved the shutdown of Airtel Kenya Telesonic, prompting the Registrar of Companies to kick off the deregistration.

Airtel Telesonic is the wholesale arm of Airtel Africa focused on providing enhanced data solutions and extensive fibre-optic networks across the telco giant’s 14 African markets.

It serves governments, large enterprises, small and medium-sized enterprises, startups and cloud hyperscalers – large cloud computing providers that operate data centres.

But the Kenyan company has struggled to turn a profit since 2014 amid stiff competition from other players in the fibre sector such as Safaricom, Liquid Intelligent Technologies, Seacom East Africa, and MTN Group’s Bayobab.

Airtel’s ultimate parent company, Indian firm Bharti Airtel, announced that as at December 2025, the company was in the process of winding up Airtel Kenya Telesonic.

‘Having assessed the company’s operational outlook, the company has concluded that it is not able to continue as a going concern,’ Bharti Airtel documents seen by the Business Daily said.

‘The decision to wind up the Company arose from a combination of strategic, operational, and commercial considerations.’

The Kenyan subsidiary submitted its licence booklet to the CA on February 6, 2026 and has been awaiting gazettement and completion of the remaining regulatory termination procedures.

An NFPT2 licence, valid for 15 years, costs Sh15 million. Operators pay multiple fees for the licences, including annual spectrum utilisation fees as well as 0.4 percent of their annual gross turnover or Sh800,000, whichever is higher.

Airtel Kenya Telesonic spent Sh1.2 million on licence and regulatory fees in 2025 alone, according to the Indian parent firm’s disclosures.

Telesonic is part of the 2Africa submarine cable project, which boosts connectivity between Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Other firms in the project include Meta, Safaricom’s parent Vodacom and MTN Group.

In Africa, Telesonic has more than 78,000 kilometres of terrestrial fibre and has operated across Airtel’s markets, including Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, DR Congo and Nigeria.

The telecoms giant has not disclosed its plans for Telesonic in the remaining 13 markets.

Kenya’s fixed fibre market has been growing in recent years, driven by increasing reliance on digital platforms for work, education, healthcare and entertainment, as well as attractive tariffs and special offers from service providers.

Communications Authority data shows Kenya had 1.4 million fibre-optic data subscriptions as of December 2025, up from 1.1 million in December 2024.

Safaricom controls 35.4 percent of the market, followed by Jamii Telecoms (19.5 percent) and Wananchi Group (10.4 percent).

A landlord’s decision to increase monthly rent can alter a household’s budget, particularly when the new figure runs into thousands of shillings.

The Kenyan law does not prescribe a fixed percentage by which rent can be increased. Instead, whether an increase is lawful depends on the tenancy agreement, the law governing the tenancy and, in some cases, the courts or specialised tribunals.

“There is no general statutory cap expressed as a percentage for most ordinary residential tenancies in Kenya,” says Chris Gichangi, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and partner at G.M. Gamma Advocates LLP.

“The starting point is the tenancy agreement, guided by the general law of contract. However, that does not mean a landlord can impose any increase whatsoever in every circumstance.”

According to Mr Gichangi, the legality of a rent increase depends on whether it complies with the tenancy agreement or the applicable law.

“Where a tenancy is governed by legislation such as the Rent Restriction Act or the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, rent increases are subject to statutory oversight and may be challenged before the relevant tribunal,” he says.

Court decisions over the years show how judges and tribunals have approached disputed rent reviews. While many of the recent decisions involve commercial premises governed by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, they illustrate the factors courts consider when landlords and tenants disagree over rent increases.

One of the most striking disputes involved Milly Glass Works Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation, in which Kenya Railways sought to increase annual rent from Sh146,000 to Sh10.2 million under a lease signed in 1980.

Milly Glass Works challenged the increase, arguing that it was not authorised by the lease. The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court, which struck out the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. However, the litigation underscored the importance of the terms of a lease in determining whether and when rent may be reviewed.

Another major dispute came before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Burger Chief Limited v APA Insurance Limited.

The landlord sought to increase monthly rent for commercial premises in Hurlingham from Sh41,000 to Sh192,840, arguing that the new figure reflected prevailing market rates. After considering valuation evidence from both sides, the Tribunal fixed the rent at Sh176,770 per month.

In Ngugi v Chege and another, a tenant who had paid Sh20,000 a month for about two decades challenged a proposed increase to Sh40,000.

The Tribunal upheld the new rent after considering that the rent had remained unchanged for about 20 years, prevailing market conditions and valuation evidence showing the property’s rental value. The case demonstrated that even a 100 per cent increase is not automatically unlawful if the evidence justifies it.

Other tribunal decisions have reached different conclusions.

In Said v Sulum, the Tribunal approved an increase from Sh35,000 to Sh60,000 a month, while in Miran v Edward, it reduced a landlord’s proposed increase from Sh26,000 to Sh22,500 after assessing the evidence.

In Jethwa v Janoowalla and another, landlords sought to increase rents from Sh3,354 to Sh55,000 for one tenant and from Sh2,528 to Sh35,000 for another, highlighting the significant differences that can arise where rents have remained unchanged for years.

Tribunals have also intervened where landlords failed to follow the required legal process.

In Samwel and another v David, the Business Premises Rent Tribunal restrained a landlord from illegally increasing rent and declared a termination notice invalid.

Similarly, in Fabian Investment Limited v Deveer Developers Limited, a tenant challenged an increase from Sh80,000 to Sh110,000, arguing that the landlord had not issued the required notice, while Machua v Mungai involved a challenge to an increase from Sh45,000 to Sh70,000 on procedural grounds.

While the outcomes differ, the cases point to a common principle: Kenyan courts and tribunals do not determine rent disputes by looking only at the percentage increase. They consider the tenancy agreement, applicable legislation, market evidence, valuation reports and whether the landlord followed the proper legal procedure.

According to Mr Gichangi, valuation evidence is often decisive where a rent increase is disputed.

“The tribunals have consistently examined whether the proposed rent reflects what would reasonably be obtained in the open market for comparable premises,” he says.

He adds that valuation reports and comparable market rates often carry significant weight, particularly in commercial tenancy disputes.

Even where a lease contains a rent-review clause, landlords are not given unlimited discretion to revise rent.

“A rent-review clause generally gives the landlord a contractual right to review rent, but it is not a licence for arbitrary increases. If the clause specifies timing, frequency, valuation methodology or a formula for calculating rent, those requirements must be complied with,” Mr Gichangi says.

Where a tenancy agreement is silent on rent reviews, he says, landlords cannot simply impose higher rent during an existing tenancy.

“If the tenancy is periodic, such as month-to-month, a landlord may ordinarily propose new rental terms upon giving proper notice.”

He also cautions landlords against relying solely on informal communication.

“For controlled tenancies, a landlord must issue the prescribed statutory notice. A WhatsApp message or SMS alone is unlikely to satisfy the statutory requirements where the law prescribes both the content and method of notice,” he says.

Tenants who believe a rent increase is unlawful should challenge it through the appropriate legal channels rather than simply withholding rent.

“If the increase is ultimately upheld, the tenant may become liable for rent arrears, interest, costs or even termination of the tenancy, depending on the circumstances.”

He advises tenants to first review their tenancy agreement, determine whether the tenancy is controlled, preserve all correspondence relating to the rent review and, where necessary, obtain valuation evidence before lodging a complaint with the appropriate tribunal or court.

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 Limited.

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.

He maintained that Zingo subsequently defaulted on its loan obligations to NBK, thereby exposing the properties to auction, and that the bank appointed a receiver manager.

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 has 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. On the material presently before the court, the applicant’s claim against the first defendant (Zingo) remains essentially contractual,” 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.

Give President William Ruto credit where credit is due. Amongst many things he sometimes gets accused of, being lacking in ideas is not one of them. His economic rhetoric can sometimes seem overly ambitious or forward-looking, but it is unusually substantive on the topic of transforming Kenya from a consumer economy into an economy based on production, investment and exports.

Speaking at the AmCham Business Summit in Nairobi, the President once again made trade, investment, industrialization, value-addition and international partnerships the centerpiece of Kenya’s economic discourse. Even the design of the Summit itself revolves around these issues, how to deepen two-way trade and investment flows between Kenya and the United States, and convert policy dialogue into commercial partnerships.

The problem is that speeches alone don’t deliver a country’s economic transformation. Economic transformation is delivered through implementation. And this, in my opinion, is where President Ruto will be judged. I would even argue that, history will look back on President Ruto as one of Kenya’s most innovative presidents when it comes to ideas and economic initiatives.

He has placed more items on the national agenda than most of his predecessors can claim. But whether he will be remembered as a transformational president will be determined by something far less flashy than presidential speeches at high-profile events: can his administration build the systems necessary to turn those ideas into results?

Therein lies the value of the Kibaki comparison. Ruto has the vision. Kibaki understood the machinery. When President Mwai Kibaki appeared before the press or cameras, he sometimes faced criticism for being distant or removed from the political theatre. He was never a great political showman. He understood something else about government though.

The President of Kenya does not wake up every morning and roll up his sleeves to personally implement government policy. Institutions do. Institutions staffed with competent people do.

If there was one area where Kibaki excelled it was assembling a strong economic management team and empowering technocrats to get on with the job. Kenyans did not see the Finance Cabinet Secretary dozens of times a week on television dashboards. But that team did pass the UMA, they did oversee large investments in infrastructure, they did stabilize the macroeconomy and they did implement key economic reforms.

The difference with President Ruto is night and day. Ruto is everywhere. He is travelling all over the country. He is meeting investors. Announcing programs. Speaking directly to exporters. Reiterating his economic vision at every available opportunity. All of that is good. And necessary. The presidency is visible. But with great visibility comes great responsibility.

With President Ruto talking about so many ambitious initiatives and projects, the presidency must also have systems in place to track whether those announcements are being implemented. Otherwise, the best plans and policies become just another broken promise in Kenya’s long history of unfulfilled intentions.

Kenya’s EPZs are a case in point. Kenya’s apparel industry was supposed to be one of those success stories. Established with the purpose of attracting foreign investors, creating jobs and helping Kenya plug into global manufacturing value chains, EPZs have created employment and earned Kenya export revenues.

By one government estimate shared recently during sector talks, there are currently 43 apparel firms operating under the EPZ program employing over 66,000 Kenyans. Kenya exported US$500 million worth of apparel to the United States last year alone. Impressive. But where are the Kenyan companies?

Industrial policy is often focused on attracting the multinational but is less focused on what happens after they arrive. Too often we think that if we can just get foreign factories to set up shop here, employment will surge, people will get jobs and everyone lives happily ever after. And while that is part of the equation, it is only part of the equation. investment.

Investors haven’t been forced to source locally; Kenya should create the conditions where local sourcing becomes a competitive necessity over time. That, right there, is smart economic policy. And this is where Kenya missed the second layer of the policy.

Every major investment announcement should come with a Kenyan value-chain strategy attached to it. If that investor comes to Kenya, government shouldn’t stop at asking: ‘How many jobs will you create?’ They should ask further: ‘What will you do to ensure Kenyan companies become suppliers to your business?’ ‘How many Kenyan firms will benefit from technology transfer?’ ‘How many Kenyan companies currently working as subcontractors can we expect to graduate to becoming direct suppliers?’ ‘What percentage of your inputs can realistically be locally sourced within five years? How about ten years?’ ‘How many Kenyan managers and technical specialists will you train?’ ‘How will you support Kenyan businesses to manufacture components, packaging, machinery or inputs used by your facility?’ ‘What commitments will put the Kenyan firm partnering with you on a clear path to graduate from being your supplier to becoming your competitor?’ This should be tracked annually.

Until key milestones are hit, these should form part of the conditions under which major incentives are granted. Kenya should stop thinking about investment announcements purely in terms of jobs. Jobs are good. But as the EPZ example shows us, jobs are not enough. A factory can employ 10,000 Kenyans. But if that factory imports all of its inputs, exports all of its outputs, pays little or no taxes because of tax exemptions, relies solely on Kenyan labour with no transfer of skills, technology or capital and keeps the brand, intellectual property, design, procurement, financing and consumer relationships abroad what exactly have we gained?

Speeches and policies are forgotten, and with that in mind, is how President Ruto can truly leave a legacy that matters. Not by what he says. But by leaving behind a Kenya that has figured out how to actually deliver on his promises.

Would you spend Sh144,000 on three trees? Last Friday, someone did at Planty Kenya, a small shop in Lavington, Nairobi. Three European olive trees, each at ShSh48,000, left the shelves in a single morning.

“These plants don’t stay in the shop for long. By the end of the week, not a single one will be left. Most of them are pre-ordered, and the rest are for walk-in customers,” said Lucy Kioi, who runs the shop.

While most plant shops in Nairobi sell seedlings and common shrubs, Lucy sells plants that take years, sometimes decades, to grow into what they are: mature olive trees, bonsai shaped over a lifetime of pruning, hybrid roses grafted onto thick trunks, and magnolias already old enough to flower.

She imports most of her stock from Europe and China, and when a shipment lands, it rarely lasts long. The batch that arrived less than 24 hours before we visited had 201 plants across 20 varieties, and most of them were already paid for.

Ask Lucy why anyone would spend Sh100,000 on a tree, and her answer comes down to this: people are not really paying for the plant itself, but for the years of waiting they get to skip.

The most expensive

A 200-centimetre olive tree costs around Sh100,000, while a smaller 120-centimetre one goes for Sh30,000, and a five-year-old magnolia sells for Sh85,000. A particularly thick, mature olive from an earlier shipment sold for Sh120,000, with the most expensive olive Lucy has ever sold going for Sh150,000.

Bonsai take years of training to develop their signature shape, and the current selection is priced at around Sh39,000, though a Juniperus chinensis bonsai from an earlier batch sold for Sh63,000.

“When someone has spent Sh50,000 on a plant, they become very invested in it,” Lucy said, adding that they want to know how to take care of it, where to put it, and how to keep it healthy.

Some plants come with a bonus: a mature calamondin, a cross between a mandarin orange and a kumquat, can already be bearing fruit when it arrives, and the same goes for olive trees, which will eventually produce olives that can be pressed into oil. Buyers end up with a fully grown ornamental plant instead of a young one that could take years to bear fruit.

Even Buddha’s Hand, a citrus fruit known for its odd, finger-like shape and cultural significance, sells for Sh10,000 for the fruit alone, while a pachira, more commonly called a money tree, goes for about Sh29,000.

Around 40 percent of Lucy’s customers are repeat buyers, and rather than shopping out of necessity, they tend to be hunting for something new.

“They want something different,” she said. “Some want a statement piece for their home or apartment, while others are looking for a particular variety they have seen online or encountered while travelling.”

Her customers range from apartment dwellers with barely a balcony to homeowners with large compounds and commercial clients furnishing offices or hotels.

Risky business

Getting a tree from a farm abroad into a shop in Lavington is complicated, and the process starts well before the plants ever touch Kenyan soil.

The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service requires anyone importing plant material to get a permit before the shipment even leaves its country of origin, and every consignment also needs a phytosanitary certificate from the exporting country, along with, depending on the species, a permit under the international treaty covering endangered plants and animals.

“Imported plant material is inspected, and consignments without the required permits or documentation can be refused entry, destroyed or re-shipped at the owner’s cost,” Lucy said.

Even the soil is an issue, since plants cannot travel in the dirt they were originally grown in, as that soil can carry pests or diseases across borders, so instead they are packed in materials like coco peat for the trip and repotted once they arrive in Kenya.

Minimum capital

None of this comes cheap. Lucy says the minimum capital needed for a single import order is about Sh400,000, though most orders run between Sh600,000 and Sh1.5 million, depending on the type and size of the shipment. Sea freight is cheaper, but it takes much longer, and some plants need an extra month or two to recover once they land, which is why Lucy ships by air instead- a journey that takes about three days.

In January 2024, on her very first import order, Lucy brought in more than 100 bougainvillaea plants at about Sh1.2 million, for a batch that customers had already placed orders for.

“The plants arrived looking healthy, but they died within three days,” she said. She moved the survivors to her home in Tigoni, outside Nairobi, without expecting much. Three months later, they came back to life.

“When you are importing plants, anything can happen,” Lucy said. “They can leave the supplier looking beautiful and healthy, but by the time they arrive, the situation could be completely different. You just have to be ready for those risks.”

Could these plants just be grown here? Lucy thinks local propagation could eventually cut down the cost and risk of constant importing, though she does not see it replacing imports any time soon, since training a young plant into the size and shape customers want takes years on its own.

“For now, imports remain important because they provide the variety and maturity that customers want,” she added.

Emerging markets are shifting from being users of global financial infrastructure to its innovators. Countries are building payment systems tailored to local economic realities, and those models are now informing global fintech. Kenya and Jamaica are two instructive examples.

Two regional gateways separated by thousands of miles, they differ in geography and economic structure. Kenya is a major East African economy and a gateway to the region. Jamaica is an island gateway economy in the Caribbean, closely tied to North America, CARICOM, and global diaspora communities.

Yet they share critical commonalities. Both are English-speaking markets integrated into global trade. Both have vibrant entrepreneurial cultures and influential diasporas. In both, SMEs, households, and local businesses depend heavily on efficient cash flow.

And bilateral ties are deepening. In July 2026, Kenya established its first permanent High Commission in Kingston, laying a foundation for stronger political, economic, and cultural exchange.

Kenya’s financial innovation is driven by local demand and mobile money. Mobile wallets have become daily financial infrastructure for consumers, merchants, and SMEs – transforming not just how people pay, but how businesses collect, pay bills, and manage cash flow, while bringing more users into the formal financial system.

Jamaica’s dynamics are different. Its capital flows are shaped by tourism, international trade, and a large overseas diaspora. According to World Bank data, personal remittances into Jamaica accounted for approximately 16.2 percent of GDP in 2024.

Kenya shows how digital payments can transform domestic commerce. Jamaica shows why reliable international collections, remittances, and local disbursements are vital for growth. The next opportunity is connecting these two strengths.

Capital flows between emerging markets remain complex. A payment from Kenya to Jamaica can still require multiple intermediaries, multiple FX conversions, and prefunding arrangements, constrained by traditional banking hours and cross-border clearing cycles.

This raises costs for smaller corridors, even where real demand exists in trade, tourism, education, creative industries, professional services, and family remittances.

Addressing this requires more than another consumer app. It requires infrastructure that connects local payment methods – including bank accounts and mobile wallets – with banks, mobile money and international transfer networks, FX and liquidity providers, and systems for compliance, transaction monitoring, and risk management.

It also needs stable, reliable local disbursement at both ends, plus operations that support inquiries, reconciliation, and exception handling. Only when these links are coordinated can cross-border payments become faster, more transparent, and commercially sustainable.

The market is exploring more efficient inter-institutional clearing and settlement to reduce prefunding pressure, improve liquidity efficiency, and shorten payment chains. Technology can accelerate processing, but speed alone is not the core of cross-border payments.

For corporate and individual customers, what matters is status clarity, transparent FX rates and fees, timely arrival, and quick resolution of anomalies.

Whatever technology or settlement model is used, services must operate within local laws – covering customer identification, corporate due diligence, source of funds verification, purpose of transaction review, anti-money laundering, sanctions screening, fund security, and consumer protection. Technology can shorten the chain, but it cannot replace compliance, liquidity, and local operational capability.

Kenya and Jamaica are at different stages of digital finance development, but both are strengthening their regulatory and market infrastructure. Clearer licensing regimes, governance requirements, AML/CFT frameworks, and customer fund protection measures provide a more stable foundation for innovation.

For cross-border providers, long-term value lies not in entering more countries or adding more payment methods, but in building sustainable operations across different regulatory systems.

That means clarifying participant responsibilities, ensuring transaction data is traceable, establishing reliable reconciliation, and completing local collection, FX conversion, and final disbursement through licensed institutions.

The rise of emerging markets is not just about growth rates, but about building financial infrastructure that serves local people and businesses. The future cross-border network will not necessarily be dominated by traditional centres like New York, London, or Singapore. More new connections will emerge directly between emerging markets.

From Nairobi to Kingston, this corridor is more than a financial link. It represents broader cooperation between East Africa and the Caribbean in trade, tourism, education, professional services, and people-to-people exchange.

The High Court has rejected an application seeking to jail two senior officials of the Local Authorities Provident Fund (Lapfund) over alleged disobedience of orders restoring five former directors appointed by retired President Uhuru Kenyatta’s administration.

The court dismissed the contempt application against Acting Chief Executive Officer Bernard Mbogo and board chairman Johnson Osoi, finding that the orders the officials were accused of breaching were no longer enforceable.

The dispute followed the revocation of the appointments of Molu Jillo Mamo, Haro Guto Okola, Kirigha Mwanyasi, Elyas Sheikh Abdinoor and Patrick Muiruri by to the Treasury Cabinet in February and March 2023.

The quintet had been appointed by former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s administration in 2021 and mid-2022 to serve three-year terms on the Lapfund board. However, President William Ruto’s administration revoked their appointments before their respective terms had expired.

They challenged the decision in court, arguing that they had been removed without notice, reasons, or an opportunity to be heard.

In January 2024, the court quashed the revocation and the relevant Gazette Notices, and barred interference with the directors for the remainder of their terms unless the law was followed.

The applicants later accused Lapfund’s leadership of ignoring the judgment. They sought six-month prison terms for Mr Mbogo and Mr Osoi, claiming the five directors had not been reinstated and that the institution continued operating without a fully constituted board.

Their allegations included recruitment of a chief executive, restructuring, salary increases and other decisions said to require board oversight. The applicants argued that the continued exclusion of the directors exposed the fund and its members to governance risks.

The two officials opposed the application. They said they were not parties to the original petition, were not personally bound by the judgment and lacked authority to reinstate the former directors. They also denied deliberately disobeying a clear and enforceable order.

The judge said court orders must be obeyed unless set aside or stayed. However, he found that contempt proceedings could not sustain an order whose practical effect had ended.

The court noted that some of the former directors had resigned, while the terms of the others had expired by the time the contempt application was being determined.

‘The considered view of this court is that once the terms expired either voluntarily by resignation (which is not contested) or expiry of the term of service, the protective order issued by the court also became spent and can no longer be enforced by contempt proceedings. The application for contempt cannot thus be brought to enforce what is no longer capable of enforcement,’ the judge said.

The court described the application as ‘misconceived, an afterthought and moot’.

It stressed that the contempt case was not a determination that every allegation of non-compliance had occurred or that the officials had been cleared after a full trial on the alleged conduct.

Its central finding was that the protective order was no longer capable of meaningful enforcement.

The former directors’ farewell and resignation letters, which thanked the appointing authority, were relied on in assessing whether they still sought to serve under the quashed appointments.

The ruling comes after the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the revocation process was unlawful and violated constitutional protections on fair administrative action.

The appellate court, however, clarified that the directors had no automatic right to serve full three-year terms; their entitlement was to lawful and fair treatment if removed early.

Bank lending for cars, appliances, electronics, furniture and other consumer durables has overtaken property financing, marking a shift in borrowing patterns as lenders become more cautious on real estate.

Credit for consumer durables has crossed Sh500 billion, latest banking industry data shows, reaching Sh502.2 billion in June 2026, which is Sh44.7 billion or 9.8 percent more than a year earlier.

The stock of bank loans for motor vehicles, household appliances, furniture, electronics and computing equipment, alongside other assets designed to last for several years, was Sh56.3 billion higher than real estate credit.

This was after lending to real estate fell by Sh6.1 billion to Sh445.9 billion during the same period.

Much of the lending under consumer durables is structured through asset-financing arrangements, while unsecured and check-off loans also support purchases of household goods and technology.

Borrowers include salaried workers, middle-income and wealthier households, as well as micro and small businesses using financing to acquire vehicles and major equipment.

The shift means banks are now carrying a larger pool of credit against movable household and business assets than against credit through mortgages, property development loans and financing for commercial buildings for the first time.

The crossover marks a dramatic reversal from June 2018, when banks had Sh373.7 billion in real estate loans against only Sh181.4 billion for consumer durables.

Consumer-durable credit has since climbed 176.9 percent, while real estate lending has grown by only 19.3 percent, pointing to a fundamental change in borrowing patterns.

The latest figures also show banks becoming more cautious about property, with a growing share of lenders expecting deterioration in real estate loan quality.

The Central Bank’s quarterly Credit Officer Survey found that 27 percent of lenders expected real estate non-performing loans to increase in June, up from 14 percent in March.

Only 27 percent expected bad property loans to decline, down from 32 percent three months earlier, while 46 percent expected them to remain unchanged.

The caution is also evident in lenders’ recovery plans, with 70 percent expecting to intensify loan recovery efforts by September, up from 68 percent in the previous quarter.

This suggests that while property lending has not collapsed, banks are paying closer attention to repayment risks as they assess new and existing exposure to the sector.

Actual bad loans, however, have been falling. CBK data show real estate NPLs stood at Sh109.8 billion of a Sh503 billion gross loan book last December.

That was down from Sh130.7 billion in NPLs out of Sh512.2 billion three months earlier, showing that current loan performance does not point to a broad-based deterioration.

The divergence between falling NPLs and rising lender concerns points to a more cautious outlook rather than an immediate property-loan crisis.

Real estate credit has already entered contraction after years of slowing growth, falling 1.35 percent in the year to June 2026.

Annual growth had slowed from 32.4 percent in June 2022 to 3.67 percent in 2023, 3.61 percent in 2024 and 1.64 percent in 2025.

The latest decline is the first annual contraction since June 2021, when real estate credit fell 21 percent during the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The weakness also masks significant differences within the property market, with stronger demand for high-quality buildings contrasting sharply with pressure on older commercial stock.

Knight Frank’s Africa Office Market Review for the first half of 2026 describes a two-tier market, with an undersupply of Grade A offices alongside an oversupply of lower-grade buildings.

The stronger segment has benefited from rising occupancy and rental resilience, while older offices face elevated vacancies and greater competition for tenants.

Average Grade A office rents in Nairobi stood at about $13 or Sh1,684 per square metre in June, unchanged since June 2022, according to Knight Frank.

Occupancy has nevertheless improved steadily to 84.8 percent, from a post-pandemic low of 71.5 percent three years earlier, while rental yields have remained at 8.5 percent since June 2023.

The figures suggest that the cautionary stance by the banks is not necessarily a verdict on the entire property market, but reflects differences in the quality and performance of assets and borrowers.

Consumer-durable financing, on the other hand, has been moving in the opposite direction, recording nearly 10 percent annual growth for a second consecutive year.

Credit increased by Sh44.7 billion in the year to June, following a Sh40.2 billion increase in the previous year.

A court has cancelled a Nakuru land title after finding that the register was opened two days after the original owner died and another person was recorded as proprietor 11 years later.

The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru ordered the disputed parcel returned to the estate of William Kiiru after his family sued, arguing that the transfer was unlawful because it happened after his death.

According to the court judgment, Kiiru died on August 16, 1971, but the land register was opened two days later, before Fredrick Mbui was registered as proprietor on April 15, 1982, and the property later came to be registered in John Njogu’s name.

‘There was no evidence from the white card as to how the transfer was done. Further, there was no evidence of any succession proceedings or any other person who had authority to transfer the suit property on behalf of the deceased. The plaintiff pleaded the particulars of fraud and illegalities and gave evidence to prove the same,’ the court said.

The court declared the registration and transfer to Fredrick Mbui and John Njogu unlawful, fraudulent, null and void.

It also ordered the Land Registrar to cancel the entries and restore the property to Kiiru. The court held that property registration after an owner’s death, without succession authority, was unprocedural and could not stand.

The case was filed by Julius Wambugu, acting as legal representative of the estate. It arose from a land record whose dates became central to the ownership battle.

Kiiru died on August 16, 1971. The court heard that the White Card for the parcel was opened on August 18, 1971, two days later. Mr Mbui was then entered as proprietor on April 15, 1982.

The court described the sequence as ‘an anomaly and irregular as Kiiru had passed on 11 years ago.’

Mr Wambugu told the court that he discovered in 2014 that the property was registered in the name of Mr Njogu. He reported the matter at Bondeni Police Station and received an occurrence book number.

He also lodged a restriction at the Lands Registry on July 24, 2014, which remained in place when the suit was heard. He wrote to the then Nakuru Municipal Council asking it not to transfer the plot or issue construction consent because it was a site-and-service plot.

The estate sought help from the Kenya Human Rights Commission, which referred the matter to the National Land Commission. The efforts did not resolve the problem, prompting the October 2023 suit filed in court.

The defendants were served with the court papers, but neither entered appearance nor filed a defence. The court, however, stressed that their silence did not automatically establish the estate’s claim. It said that the party making the claim must still prove it under the Evidence Act.

The estate produced allocation documents, lease records, payment receipts, land-rate demands, correspondence and registry material. The evidence showed that Kiiru was the original allottee and that the disputed registration had no clear legal explanation.

The court noted there was ‘no evidence from the white card as to how the transfer was done’. It also found no evidence of succession proceedings or another person authorised to transfer the property for Kiiru.

The court concluded that the estate had proved its case on a balance of probabilities and issued a permanent injunction barring the defendants, their agents or anyone claiming through them from entering, occupying, trespassing on or interfering with the plot.

Before we begin, the movie we are going to talk about is Runner, not The Runner, which stars Gal Gadot. It’s one of those rare moments when Hollywood releases movies that share a similar title concurrently.

When you see names like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, or Jackie Chan on a movie poster, you know what kind of film you’re about to experience. These actors have, over time, carved their identities into the action genre, becoming shorthand for a particular brand of high-octane cinema.

For today’s audience, Alan Ritchson feels like the natural heir to that tradition. Just this year alone, we have seen him in War Machine on Netflix, Playdate (a comedy-action which was more of a misfire), Motor City (which I consider to be one of the most unique action movies of the year), and we are currently in a new season of Reacher.

The man has been putting in the work, but above all that, I will reiterate something I mentioned in my review of Motor City, Alan Ritchson was born to play Batman, and I hope that the current team running the DC cinematic universe shares the same sentiments.

Anyway.

Now he’s back with Runner, a 2026 American, yes, you guessed it, action comedy directed by Scott Waugh. He stars alongside Owen Wilson, Rodrigo Santoro, Leila George, Adriana Barraza, Sullivan Stapleton, Peta Sergeant, and Geraldine Hakewill.

The synopsis: a former soldier and his unlikely partner become targets of a ruthless cartel while racing to deliver a critical package and save a little girl’s life. It’s as basic as they come, but that simplicity is the film’s strength. It has all the right ingredients for an action film: a MacGuffin, a combat-trained protagonist, a tattooed antagonist in black, and of course, the emotional anchor.

The movie doesn’t try to put your brain on a treadmill, you don’t need to wrestle with social commentary or psychological puzzles. It’s a clear, accessible premise designed to serve and elevate the action.

The pairing of Owen Wilson and Alan Ritchson works surprisingly well. Hollywood has long loved the odd-couple dynamic, think of something close to Tango and Cash, but here, the contrasting personalities complement each other in ways that create genuine comedic moments and unexpected dramatic turns. There’s a moment where the filmmakers take a character in a direction you wouldn’t expect.

The rest of the cast is okay; the child, plus the props, is enough to keep you invested.

Good pacing

What defines Runner is its refusal to pretend it’s more than an action thriller. By the 20-minute mark, the chase is on, and the film rarely lets up. Even in quieter scenes, there’s always momentum, always a sense of pursuit.

The pacing keeps the stakes rising, and by the third act, the tension is palpable. The action set pieces are inventive; whether it’s clever use of car tyres, carnage, or the concept of the cartel in Australia, the film finds ways to keep familiar tropes fresh. The villains are more than cardboard cut-outs, too.

The cartel’s motivations go beyond money, adding layers to the conflict. There’s the enforcer who handles the dirty work, and ‘mom,’ a figure whose influence over the gang is fascinating despite limited screen time. Throw in Australian bikers, and you’ve got a colourful mix of adversaries who pose a real threat to the good guys.

This is a bright film, almost to the level of a sitcom, with clear visuals that avoid the erratic editing often used to mask weak choreography. The camera lingers when it needs to, capturing the interiors of cars and hand-to-hand combat with clarity, something a lot of modern movies shy away from.

By the time the third-act ambulance chase happens, the tension is through the roof, and the camera work helps telegraph that intensity. The editing during fight scenes is handled well enough that you never lose track of the action, especially in that one third-act fight, which reminded me of the lift fight in Motor City, one of Ritchson’s standout sequences.

Gripes

A doorstep conversation scene feels unnecessary, slowing the pace when more action would have been welcome. The first hour leans more toward thriller than full-blown action, with only a couple of gun work, hand-to-hand fights and car scenes before the chaos of the final act.

I found myself wishing for more combat earlier on. The emotional beats involving the little girl also feel heavy-handed. The film works overtime to make you care, emphasising her eyes using oversized glasses in ways that border on manipulative. It heightens the tension, but the effort is obvious.

So, can we call this a mindless popcorn movie? Well, Runner is not mindless action; it has structure, sensibility, and a clear story. The premise may be basic, but the execution makes it enjoyable. The third act is wild, full of surprises you won’t see coming, and it cements the film as one of Ritchson’s most enjoyable action thrillers. It’s fast-paced, tense, and entertaining, with action that feels both classic and fresh. Most importantly, its runtime is just perfect, 90 minutes to be exact.