Category: Business Daily

A Nairobi businesswoman has been ordered by the High Court to pay Sh2.5 million in damages for operating a school under the name ‘Johari School,’ misleadingly presenting it as an established competitor in the education industry.

The court ruled that Rosemary Wambugu infringed on the goodwill of Johari School Limited by using a confusingly similar name for her daycare and kindergarten facility along Kiambu Road.

‘It is clear that the plaintiff (Johari School Limited) has proved that the defendant passed off her services as those of the plaintiff. Considering the plaintiff’s established goodwill and the defendant’s contempt of prior court orders, I assess general damages at Sh2.5 million,’ the judge stated.

The legal dispute involved Johari School Limited, incorporated in July 2011, and Ms Wambugu, who operated Johari Daycare and Kindergarten, established in 2014.

Johari School Limited filed a suit in 2018, stating that it had registered and operated under the name since 2011, receiving full registration from the Ministry of Education in January 2012 and building a strong reputation and enrollment base.

The company argued that Ms Wambugu later adopted the same name to run an institution, causing confusion among parents and business partners. It claimed her actions were opportunistic and intended to profit from its established brand.

Despite a demand notice, Johari School Limited and its director, Salome Beacco, said Ms Wambugu continued using the name, forcing them to seek legal remedies, including declarations, an injunction, damages and costs.

But Ms Wambugu denied wrongdoing, stating that she lawfully registered her business name in January 2014, after an approved name search by the registrar, who did not reject it on grounds of potential confusion.

She maintained that she was unaware of Johari School Limited’s existence at the time and argued that ‘Johari’-a Kiswahili word meaning ‘jewel’-could not be exclusively owned.

Ms Wambugu also contended that Johari School Limited had not trademarked the name and that prior company registration did not grant exclusive rights.

In a counterclaim, she accused the company of malice and sought damages. However, the court dismissed her arguments, ruling that the case hinged on passing off rather than trademark registration.

The court issued a permanent injunction barring Ms Wambugu from using ‘Johari School’ or any confusingly similar variation and dismissed her counterclaim with costs.

The court defined passing off as ‘falsely representing one’s own product as that of another in an attempt to deceive potential buyers.’

The judge noted that under the Trade Marks Act, a party can sue for passing off even without a registered trademark. To succeed, a claimant must prove goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage or likelihood of damage.

Applying this test, the court found that Johari School Limited had operated continuously since 2011 and established goodwill. It also determined that Ms Wambugu registered ‘Johari Daycare and Kindergarten’ in 2014 and later sought Ministry of Education registration as ‘Johari School’ and ‘C.I Johari School.’

‘It is clear that the names of the two schools are strikingly similar, and an ordinary person may conclude that the two entities are related or the same,’ the court observed.

The ruling stated that both institutions targeted the same market and that Ms Wambugu’s services were ‘not distinguishable when viewed as a whole,’ creating confusion.

Regarding damages, the judge noted that the law presumes loss where goodwill is undermined through passing off. While precise computation was difficult, relevant factors justified the Sh2.5 million award.

The High Court in Nairobi has upheld a Capital Markets Tribunal decision holding Dyer and Blair Investment Bank liable for a fraudulent transfer of shares owned by a deceased person three decades ago.

Affirming the regulator’s authority to enforce investor protection even decades later, the court ruled that stockbrokers owe their clients a duty of care in capital markets transactions.

The court dismissed the investment bank’s appeal and upheld an enforcement directive issued by the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) in March 2018, requiring partial compensation to the estate of the late Patricia Wanjiku.

The dispute stemmed from the irregular disposal of her KCB bank and Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya (SCBK) shares shortly after her death in 1995.

The case originated from a complaint filed in August 2013 by John Maina, the deceased’s son and estate administrator, who alleged that 150 KCB shares and 600 SCBK shares were transferred using forged documents in November 1995.

Dyer and Blair, as the broker, was mandated to facilitate the transfer of the shares and to collect the various documents required to enable the transfer. The documentation included share transfer forms, client identification and original share certificates, which would then be forwarded to the registrar for verification.

Investigations later confirmed that the signatures on the transfer forms were fraudulent, prompting regulatory action.

On March 6, 2018, the CMA ordered Dyer and Blair to compensate the estate with 50 percent of the dividends (Sh125,074) and reinstate 50 percent of the irregularly disposed securities (1,330 KCB shares and 550 SCBK shares) resulting from the 1995 sale.

The number of shares owned by an investor can grow over time even without additional investments, as listed companies can issue bonus shares or split their stock in any year.

This decision was affirmed by the tribunal in March 2024, leading Dyer and Blair to challenge it in the High Court.

The investment bank contested both the tribunal’s and the regulator’s findings, arguing that the family’s claim was time-barred since it was raised nearly 22 years after the sale.

Section 21 of the Limitation of Actions Act sets a 12-year limit from when the cause of action arises. The bank also claimed the complainant lacked legal standing and that modern regulatory duties were improperly applied to pre-existing transactions.

Additionally, it argued that registrars – not brokers – were responsible for signature verification at the time, stating that it merely processed documents and relied on registrars for authentication without access to specimen signatures.

However, the court rejected these arguments, agreeing with the tribunal that limitation periods in fraud cases begin only upon discovery of wrongdoing.

‘Those defenses were not ignored; they were assessed and rejected on the basis that, as a licensed market intermediary, the appellant owed its clients a duty of care to verify instructions and detect anomalies, particularly in fraudulent transfers,’ the court stated.

The court ruled that the complaint was validly considered after investigations in 2015 confirmed forgery.

‘The cause of action arose upon discovery of the alleged fraud, not in 1995 when the shares were transferred,’ the judge held.

Regarding Mr Maina’s legal standing, the court noted that the issue had not been raised earlier before the regulator or tribunal and could not be introduced on appeal.

It also found that evidence confirmed his authority to act for the estate, dismissing claims that the proceedings were invalid.

The court further rejected arguments about retrospective regulation, clarifying that the tribunal relied on longstanding common law duties of stockbrokers rather than applying newer rules.

References to updated regulations, it said, merely illustrated evolving standards. The judgment emphasised that brokers act as agents and must exercise reasonable care and skill.

‘The relationship between a stockbroker and a client is one of principal and agent,’ the court observed, adding that fiduciary duties existed even before formal codification.

These duties, it ruled, obligate brokers to verify instructions and flag anomalies, especially where fraud is suspected.

The court ultimately upheld the sanctions, finding no error in ordering Dyer and Blair to compensate the estate, and dismissed the appeal.

Education is often described as transformative, and rightly so. It shapes lives, expands opportunity and underpins social and economic progress.

Yet more than 70 years after the global community declared education a basic human right, millions of children and young people around the world remain excluded from learning in ways that are both persistent and predictable.

As the world marks International Day of Education, the more difficult task is not restating the principle, but confronting why delivery continues to fall so far short.

The right to education is clearly established in international law. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone has the right to education and that elementary education should be free and compulsory.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child later reinforced this obligation, requiring states to make education accessible at all levels, using every appropriate means. These commitments were never framed as optional. They assumed duty, not goodwill.

That same logic carried through to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where education was positioned as central to all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

SDG 4 committed the world to inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning by 2030. Nearly a decade later, the distance between aspiration and reality remains uncomfortable.

Data from the Unesco Institute for Statistics indicates that progress in reducing out-of-school numbers has been slow and uneven, with the burden of exclusion remaining concentrated in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

As of 2023, an estimated 272 million children and young people were out of school globally. The majority live in poorer countries, while high-income countries account for only a small share. The pattern is long-standing and consistent: a child’s chances of completing school continue to depend heavily on where they are born and the circumstances they inherit.

What is striking is not just the scale of exclusion, but how foreseeable it is. Education outcomes continue to track closely with poverty, gender, geography, disability, displacement and conflict.

Systems know, in advance, which children are most likely to fall out. When the same groups are excluded year after year, this can no longer be explained away as misfortune or individual failure. It reflects how systems are financed, designed and prioritised.

The costs of this failure accumulate over time. Education remains one of the strongest predictors of income, employment stability, health outcomes and civic participation. When education systems do not work for large segments of the population, societies absorb the consequences through unemployment, informality, inequality and slower growth.

Where education systems are inclusive and responsive, they support resilience and shared prosperity. Where they are not, inequality becomes entrenched.

Treating education as a right therefore requires more than expanding access or enrollment. It requires systems that are deliberately designed around those most likely to be excluded.

Uniform provision in unequal contexts does not produce fairness. It reproduces disadvantage. Learners whose circumstances or talents fall outside standard pathways are often the first to exit, and their departure is too often misread as a personal shortcoming rather than a system design problem.

Legal frameworks and global declarations matter. They set norms and expectations. But they do not deliver education on their own. Governments must finance education as a core public obligation and invest in systems capable of responding to inequality.

The private sector has a stake in strengthening human capital as the foundation of long-term economic participation. Civil society and communities must continue to press for accountability, particularly where exclusion is well known and poorly addressed.

Ultimately, the credibility of education as a human right will be judged less by what we affirm on international days, and more by whether education systems are intentionally built to reach those they have long and predictably left behind.

For much of the last three decades, following the end of the Cold War, governments were encouraged to step back and let markets decide. Growth, we were told, would follow efficiency, openness and integration.

In 2026, that advice no longer reflects how industry grows or how economic success is shaped. This is not because markets have failed. Markets still matter, but they no longer operate in isolation from public policy.

A sequence of shocks from the global financial crisis to the pandemic exposed the limits of relying on efficiency alone to deliver resilience, inclusion and long-term growth.

By early 2020s, it became clear that leaving growth entirely to markets was no longer sufficient. As economist Dani Rodrik has observed, in An Industrial Policy for Good Jobs (2022, governments played a role in shaping economies but what has changed is that industrial policy is now being pursued more openly and deliberately.

Across the world, production decisions are being influenced by incentives, standards, public procurement, domestic content rules and long-term national priorities.

For business leaders, this means the environment in which firms operate is becoming more structured, more directional, and more consequential.

This shift is evident in everything from large-scale clean energy incentives in advanced economies to local content requirements in infrastructure and manufacturing across emerging markets.

The old industrial logic assumed that firms would naturally locate where costs were lowest and regulations were lightest. Today, that assumption is giving way to a more complex reality.

Governments are actively steering growth towards priority sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, food systems, life sciences, the digital economy, and digital infrastructure.

They are doing so, not to replace markets, but to address vulnerabilities such as supply disruptions, skills shortages and infrastructure gaps.

As a result, growth is being shaped by where ecosystems exist, not just where costs are cheapest. Firms are looking for places with reliable power, skilled workers, policy stability, access to finance and credible long-term demand. Countries that organise these elements effectively are being pulled ahead.

What does this mean for business? In 2026, companies will be rewarded for a deeper understanding of policy environments. Strategic decisions about where to invest, expand, or source inputs will depend not only on commercial calculations, but also on how governments signal priorities and enforce rules.

This does not mean business aligning politically. It means business must become more policy literate. Understanding incentive schemes, regulatory trajectories and national development strategies is now a core commercial skill.

Firms that treat public policy as background noise risk misreading markets. Those who engage constructively while remaining commercially disciplined will be better positioned to manage risk and capture opportunity.

For developing and emerging economies, the changing growth model presents both opportunity and risk.

On the one hand, the reorganisation of global production is opening space for new industrial hubs. Countries that can offer credible strategies, targeted support and predictable rules are attracting investment into manufacturing, processing and services that were previously out of reach.

On the other hand, the margin for error is narrowing for governments. Competing purely on low costs is no longer sufficient. Nor is offering open-ended incentives without building underlying capabilities.

Growth in 2026 will increasingly favour countries that are deliberate, focused and disciplined in how they support industry.

This places a premium on industrial strategy as a practical framework that aligns incentives, skills, infrastructure, finance and regulation around a small number of priorities.

One of the most important shifts underway is the changing role of the state. Governments are not just regulating markets; they are helping organise them. This requires a different kind of public capacity as successful industrial strategies depend on coordination across government, engagement with the private sector, and the ability to adapt when conditions change.

In 2026, the countries that succeed will be those that govern best. Policy consistency, institutional credibility and execution capacity will matter more than headline incentives or grand promises.

It is tempting to view the current moment as temporary or as a response to recent disruptions that will fade as conditions stabilise. That would be a mistake. What is unfolding is a structural shift in how growth is organised.

Industry is now being shaped deliberately and selectively, placing a premium on quality of strategy and execution. For business leaders, this requires rethinking how risk and opportunity are assessed.

For policymakers, it demands moving beyond slogans to execution.

For countries seeking sustainable growth, it means recognising that 2026 is not just another year, but a moment when policy choices, investment decisions and institutional capabilities begin to lock in industrial trajectories for years to come.

The choices made in 2026 will determine which economies build durable industrial capabilities and which fall behind.

A tea processing firm, Korara Highlands Tea Factory, has been dealt a blow after the High Court allowed KCB to auction its assets over a Sh1 billion debt.

The Kericho-based tea processing company, producer of the Cyrus Premium Tea brand, had sought to stop the sale, arguing that it had secured a prospective buyer in a deal worth up to $10 million (Sh1.29 billion), which would allow it to settle the debt.

However, the court ruled that anticipated transactions could not override a lender’s accrued rights and that the borrower had failed to justify an injunction.

The court dismissed an application by Korara and two of its directors, Titus Kigen and Victor Kipkosgei Kigen, seeking to prevent KCB from exercising its statutory power of sale over several properties pledged as security.

The dispute stemmed from credit facilities extended by the bank in June 2023, including an overdraft, term loan, asset-based finance and insurance premium finance, totalling Sh128.1 million and $2.67 million (Sh345.5 million). These facilities were secured by seven properties in Kajiado and Kericho.

Korara moved to court after KCB issued a statutory notice demanding Sh281 million and indicating an outstanding balance exceeding Sh1.05 billion as of March 6, 2025. This was followed by a redemption notice issued through auctioneers.

The tea processor claimed it had continued servicing the loans and accused the bank of issuing defective statutory notices, imposing ‘illegal, unconscionable, and usurious’ interest rates, and obstructing a planned sale to an investor valued at up to $10 million (Sh1.29 billion).

Korara argued that this deal would allow it to clear its debt and that KCB’s actions would cause irreparable harm unless restrained.

The company, which was placed under administration last year amid financial distress, also contended that the statutory notice was not served on the two principal debtors and their spouses.

KCB opposed the application, stating that Korara had persistently defaulted despite repeated restructuring discussions. The bank maintained that all notices under the Land Act were lawfully issued, served and acknowledged, accusing the borrower of using litigation to delay recovery.

In dismissing the application, the court found that Korara had not met the legal threshold for an injunction.

‘It is not in dispute that the applicant obtained the loan facilities from the interested party (KCB) and charged the suit properties as security,’ the court said. ‘It is equally not contested that the loan accounts are in arrears.’

Regarding the challenge to statutory notices, the court ruled that the bank had complied with legal requirements.

‘The court is not persuaded that the applicants have demonstrated any patent or fundamental non-compliance sufficient to invalidate the statutory power of sale,’ the judge ruled.

The court also rejected claims of illegal interest, noting that Korara had made broad allegations without providing evidence.

‘No expert evidence or detailed computations have been placed before the court to demonstrate that the interest charged was unlawful or outside the contractual framework,’ the court ruled.

It emphasised that disputes over loan accounts do not warrant injunctive relief. Allegations of overcharging, the court noted, are compensable through damages and cannot prevent a lender from realising security.

On the issue of irreparable harm, the court dismissed arguments that the charged land was unique. ‘Once land is offered as security for commercial borrowing, it becomes a commodity for sale,’ the ruling stated.

The court also rejected reliance on a potential investor, stating: ‘Courts cannot rewrite contracts for parties or suspend contractual rights based on hoped-for future arrangements.’

Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) detectives have identified 392,162 firms and wealthy individuals that owe it Sh759.7 billion, setting the stage for travel bans, asset freeze and deactivation of Personal Identification Numbers (PINs).

The taxman unearthed the alleged tax cheats and dodgers in the wake of an audit of the withholding tax registry, which revealed that the self-declared income was substantially lower than the amounts reported by third parties paying for the taxpayers’ services.

In some instances, the taxpayers declared nil returns despite the firms they did business with declaring payments to them.

Under withholding tax rules, firms paying for services like consultancy withhold and remit part of the taxes to the KRA in every paycheque, with the taxpayers expected to pay the full duty at a later date.

The KRA reckons it is not receiving the full taxes from suppliers despite firms declaring higher payments to the contractors.

The agency kicked off an income and expenditure verification on January 1 in an audit that pulls data from multiple sources, including eTIMS invoices, withholding tax certificates and import documents, to verify the self-declaration figures provided by a taxpayer when filing returns.

The taxman says earnings in the gig economy and fees paid to consultants, managers, trainers, lawyers and auditors top the list of hidden self-declared pay.

‘Taxpayers who had taxes withheld from them yet in 2024 they filed Nil returns are 392,162. When we check the system, we can see that these taxpayers still had transactions in 2024, yet they filed nil returns,’ said George Obell, the Commissioner for Micro and Small Taxpayers.

‘There’s a mistaken notion in the market that if you pay 5.0 percent or 3.0 percent on your income, it is final. That is not correct, it is an advance tax,’ he added.

Withholding tax rates vary from 3.0 percent to 25 percent depending on the nature of the transaction and residency status.

Taxpayers are expected to pay the full tax after deducting business expenses.

There are a few instances where withholding tax is a final tax, notably on betting winnings, interest income from investments like bonds and dividendsThe KRA has started making entries of the due taxes on the firms and individual tax records, with taxpayers expected to settle the unpaid duty ahead of filing their returns before the June deadline.

‘We expect that there are many taxpayers who will see the income prepopulated on their returns and come forward to engage us,’ said Mr Obell.

‘We will also communicate to the taxpayers who will choose, despite having been shown income on their prepopulated returns, not to come forward and engage the Authority.’

This sets the stage for a crackdown triggered by the Treasury’s desire to bolster revenues to compensate for the lack of new or higher taxes in the Finance Bills in the two previous fiscal years and repair State coffers.

The government plans to increase tax collection and cut debt after years of ramped-up borrowing to build infrastructure.

With opposition to new and higher taxes, the KRA is racing to bring more people into the tax bracket and curb cheats and dodgers in the quest to meet revenue targets.

‘We are now making a serious and unprecedented effort around having visibility of transactions in the economy,’ said Mr Obell.

‘The information that is hitting our system through eTIMS tells us who is transacting, whom they are transacting with and how much they are transacting.’

The 392,162 individuals and companies account for 5.6 percent of the nearly seven million active taxpayers.

The alleged tax cheats that fail to play ball risk receiving travel bans, collection duty directly from their suppliers and bankers, as well as prosecution in what promises to be the biggest crackdown on high net-worth persons.

Self-employed professionals like doctors and lawyers as well as wealthy individuals and real estate investors will be in the crosshairs of the taxman.

The KRA has previously flagged firms in the construction, importation of hardware and household goods, scrap metal dealers and importers of electronic items, including mobile phones for under-declaring tax dues.

Wealthy individuals, have been hiding their sources of income while engaging in luxury spending and accumulation of property, including the purchase of homes and high-end cars.

Self-employed professionals have also been fingered for either evading or under-declaring their tax obligations.

The KRA enforcement unit has also been using various databases to pursue suspected tax cheats, among them bank statements, import records, motor vehicle registration details, Kenya Power records, water bills and data from the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority (KCCA), which reveals individuals who own assets such as helicopters.

Car registration details are also being used to smoke out individuals who are driving high-end vehicles but have little to show in terms of taxes remitted.

Kenya Power meter registrations are helping the taxman to identify landlords, some of whom have been slapped with huge tax demands.

‘In our current environment, there are many pieces of data that we are now putting together and that is helping us make an income estimation of someone who is transacting in the economy,’ Mr Obell said.

The Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) will not conduct a full review of Vodacom Group’s proposed acquisition of an additional 20 percent stake in Safaricom, leaving the transaction to be assessed by regional competition regulators-in a move that signals a shift in how large cross-border mergers involving Kenya are handled.

Vodacom has signed an agreement to buy a 15 percent stake from the government and another five percent from its parent firm Vodafone Group, aiming to raise its ownership in Safaricom from the current 35 percent to a controlling 55 percent. The total value of the deal is Sh272 billion.

Instead of requiring a formal merger notification, which would have triggered a detailed inquiry and attracted notification fees, CAK said the parties are only required to inform the authority of the transaction.

The deal is now under review by the East African Community Competition Authority (EACCA) and the Comesa Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCC), both of which have been formally notified.

The approach departs from long-standing practice, where transactions involving Kenyan firms were first reviewed by CAK before being escalated to regional regulators in cases where the merging parties operated in more than one country.

Traditionally, in such instances, as was seen with the recent merger between Nigeria’s Access Bank and the National Bank of Kenya, each authority would independently conduct its own inquiry.

That system, however, has been revised following agreements among regional competition regulators and local regulators last year to eliminate double notification, a process that businesses have long complained increased compliance costs and prolonged deal timelines.

Under the revised framework, companies whose transactions meet specified regional thresholds are now required to notify only the relevant regional regulator, while national authorities are informed as a matter of record.

CAK Director-General David Kemei in response said the Safaricom transaction met the criteria for regional notification because the parties operate in multiple countries and have a combined annual turnover exceeding $50 million (Sh6.4 billion).

‘In order to promote ease of doing business through the elimination of double notification, transactions that meet the prescribed thresholds are required to be notified to the CCCC in the prescribed form, with the parties additionally required to inform the authority in writing,’ Mr Kemei said.

He explained that informing CAK, as opposed to formally notifying it, does not involve any fees, investigative processes or compliance obligations. Instead, it serves as an alert mechanism, allowing the authority to remain aware of significant transactions affecting the Kenyan market without acting as the approving body.

While CAK will not conduct a formal merger review, it will still assess the transaction’s potential effects on competition and consumer welfare within Kenya and submit its views to the regional regulators conducting the inquiry.

‘The authority received confirmation from the merging parties that they had submitted their merger notification to the CCCC and the EACCA,’ Mr Kemei said.

‘We will engage the two regulators and provide our input regarding the potential impact of the transaction on competition and consumer welfare in Kenya, in accordance with the existing laws and procedures.’

The review by the EACCA is particularly significant, as it marks the first merger inquiry undertaken by the regional body since the EAC Competition Act of 2006 became operational in November 2025. The case is widely seen as an early test of the bloc’s long-dormant regional competition regime.

In a statement issued last week, the EACCA said the transaction was notifiable because the acquiring entity, South Africa’s Vodacom Group, has operations in at least three EAC member states -Kenya, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

‘The authority shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulations, determine…whether or not the merger is likely to substantially lessen competition within the Community,’ the EACCA said.

Kenya’s aviation industry has registered a surge in strategic expansion and connectivity, pointing to redrawn business models in a bid to stay competitive.

After the disruptions that followed the Covid-19 pandemic, airlines across the domestic, regional and international sectors have embraced network realignment, collaboration and operational changes in a bid to stay afloat.

National carrier, Kenya Airways (KQ), has, for example, executed a focused route realignment strategy, having deepened its global alliances and launched partnerships.

‘Last year, KQ focused on targeted route realignments driven by demand patterns and network optimisation. A key development was the introduction of London Gatwick, which allows us to better bridge demand, improve schedule balance and offer customers more flexibility in the UK market,’ says KQ’s Chief Commercial and Customer Officer Julius Thairu.

KQ’s decision to add London Gatwick services, which is a popular secondary London airport, was part of the airline’s strategy to match demand and improve schedule balance out of Nairobi.

Mr Thairu says the national carrier in 2025 concentrated on where traffic was strongest and connectivity most valuable.

‘Across the network, decisions were informed by passenger demand trends, connectivity opportunities through Nairobi and the need to maximise aircraft utilisation, while cargo operations were aligned to routes with stronger trade flows and belly-hold capacity,’ he added.

In July, KQ and Qatar Airways signed a codeshare Memorandum of Understanding, which unlocked an extensive code-share on each other’s networks and added a third daily flight between Doha and Nairobi.

The agreement also includes planned Qatar Airways-marketed flights connecting Mombasa to Doha during the winter season.

Additionally, the partnership, which was expanded in October to a major 19-destination codeshare deal, immensely strengthened KQ’s global connectivity.

Travellers flying on Kenya Airways can now access 10 additional destinations in Asia and the Middle East through Doha’s Hamad International Airport, while Qatar Airways’ customers have seamless access to eight key African cities on KQ’s network, including Abidjan, Accra, Addis Ababa, and Victoria Falls. Consequently, in an interview response to the Business Daily, the airline said that regulatory engagement has emerged as a priority area as KQ prepares for its next growth phase.

Mr Thairu noted that the airline is already laying the groundwork for additional frequencies in key regional markets.

‘Kenya Airways is engaging regulators to secure additional frequencies on key regional routes, particularly Mauritius and Lagos. These markets remain priorities due to sustained demand from business, leisure and diaspora travel, as well as their importance to regional connectivity and hub traffic through Nairobi,’ he said.

‘The planned increase in fleet capacity will support these frequency expansions and enable more consistent schedules for customers,’ Mr Thairu added.

Meanwhile, cargo has continued to assert itself as a strategic pillar to the airline’s revenue.

‘Kenya Airways is implementing several strategic initiatives to strengthen its cargo operations,’ Mr Thairu said.

‘These include fleet expansion to meet growing business demand, infrastructure development such as cold chain and special cargo handling facilities to support diversified products like perishables, pharmaceuticals, and valuable cargo and leveraging technology, including AI-driven route planning and load forecasting, to improve operational and fuel efficiency.’

The aim, Mr Thairu said, is not just growth but relevance as well: ‘These changes are designed to enhance operational viability, increase market share on key African, Middle East, and Asian trade lanes and position Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta International Airport as a major regional logistics hub.’

Domestic carriers have taken advantage of the strong uptick in local travel as they carve profitable niches and expand their capacity to meet demand.

Low-cost carrier-Jambojet, reported strong performance across domestic routes in 2025. The airline was on course to fly a projected 1.45 million passengers in 2025, with plans to add two new aircraft to its fleet in response to growing domestic demand and route expansion.

The carrier’s Chief Executive Karanja Ndegwa said the airline has observed a noticeable uptick in demand across all domestic routes, which was fueled by both leisure and economic activity.

‘Eldoret and Kisumu demonstrated the highest consistent performance, necessitating an increase in capacity from four to between five and six daily flights. These two routes are also among our top performers, boasting average load factors exceeding 85 per cent.’ Mr Ndegwa told Business Daily.

Jambojet has, in the course of expanding its daily flights on high-demand routes such as Nairobi-Eldoret and Nairobi-Kisumu, while the carrier’s fleet grew towards 10 aircraft to accommodate the rising demand.

Regionally, the airline’s bet on point-to-point leisure routes has paid off. ‘The Mombasa-Zanzibar route, launched in 2024, has shown very positive uptake, reinforcing the demand for point-to-point, low-cost services connecting East African tourism hubs,’ Mr Ndegwa said.

‘We closed 2025 having flown approximately 1.3 million passengers and commanding a 53 per cent market share,’ he added.

However, Mr Ndegwa notes that their growth has come with challenges, particularly around airport operating hours.

‘We currently operate a fleet of 9 aircraft, with one additional aircraft expected later this week, bringing our total fleet size to 10. Our average utilisation stands at 7.5 hours, which is not ideal for Low-Cost Carrier operations, where the optimal utilisation is 13 hours.’

Mr Ndegwa adds that the challenge is that most of the domestic airports close by 8pm, which limits the scheduled flights that restrict their aircraft utilisation between 6am and 8pm.

Cargo has also emerged as a longer-term play for the low-cost carrier.

‘The cargo business is a long-term strategic focus for us. We currently utilise the belly capacity in our existing schedule to supplement passenger service revenues.

This capacity offers approximately 1.2 tonnes per flight and 169 tonnes weekly across the network.’ Mr Ndegwa said

‘Our goal for 2026 is to increase frequencies to these destinations while also deploying additional capacity during the festive season.

This strategy will enable us to meet demand, lower our operating costs and consequently reduce the cost of travel for our customers,’ he added.

In the safari and regional aviation, Safarilink Aviation saw significant domestic growth, particularly in routes linking Nairobi with Mombasa and Kisumu.

Chief Executive Alex Avedi described the year as ‘spectacular’, noting they had traffic increases of more than 100 per cent on key routes and extraordinary uptake on coastal and leisure segments.

‘There are lots and lots of people flying, and that’s really a good thing for domestic tourism, for domestic businesses.’

One of their most innovative moves was the codeshare partnership between KQ and Safarilink Aviation, which added nine safari destinations to Kenya Airways’ global itinerary. This deal allows travellers to book international flights and domestic safari connections on a single ticket, which makes the journey simple for inbound tourists and boosts Kenya’s tourism ecosystem.

The partnership links international connectivity with local distribution that allows KQ’s global customers to connect with Safarilink’s flights to Maasai Mara airstrips, Amboseli, Nanyuki, and Samburu.

When it comes to the safari’s growth, Mr Avedi says that their capacity additions are looking at an immediate focus. ‘Currently, we have four flights to Kisumu, and we know we can do up to six flights. We also recently introduced Mombasa, and we have only two flights a day; we’ll probably go up to three, but we know we can easily do eight to ten, just based on the demand that we see in the market.’

The coast offers them further opportunity. ‘We see a huge opportunity in the coastal routes also with Lamu and Malindi, which today we only go once a day, and it’s a shared service between Lamu and Malindi,’ Mr Avedi said. ‘At some point, we need to delink the two services and have Lamu separate and Malindi separate.’

The administrative decision by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) to suspend ‘Nil’ filing of returns amounts to a brazen cocktail of illegality, irrationality and impropriety all rolled in one odious basket to taxpayers.

Play Video

Our tax system is based on the principle of self-assessment under section 28 of Tax Procedures Act (TPA). This right is unfettered under the law, only subject to accounting periods mapped at the point of registration.

Invariably, the commissioner may assess any taxpayer based on information available without being bound by tax return so submitted. This implies any decision must flow from a pre-existent return.

Nowhere does the TPA give discretion to suspend due date. In any case, the commissioner only has restricted powers, in writing, to request a taxpayer to file before due date, not the other way round.

It is irrational to take an administrative decision that undermines a written law without public participation. That amounts to a fiat and flies in the face of principles of legality and common sense.

The i-Tax system is the repository of all tax data. It then beats logic why the taxman suddenly makes presumption that the documents held by the taxpayer, which form basis to filing, must somehow be screened prior to filing. Properly said, the commissioner has every right to undertake additional assessment following an audit or investigation where notable discrepancies are reported or detected.

Procedurally, the KRA has made it impossible for any taxpayer to apply for tax compliance certificate (TCC) while any return is pending.

It is advisable therefore that the KRA demonstrates adequate and robust measures to ensure traders seeking the TCC for whatever reasons are not precluded from enjoying this right.

It should be borne in mind that there exist entities under non-December accounting period. To put their tax affairs in abeyance evokes insensitivity. Think of traders who need TCC to unlock payments, get jobs, secure tender bids or for statutory compliance. How do they remedy for delay ”until March”?

The KRA is not affording taxpayers any convenience. In late 2025, the taxman put out a notice disallowing expenses not supported on TIMS. Early this week, it was geo-referencing. Today, all stand suspended from filing. Where is the canon of certainty?

It should be appreciated that tax laws are generally technical in content and amenable to fluctuating context based on Finance Bills. No tax guru could possibly keep abreast with this Muguka van speed. Moreover, it is irregular for KRA to presuppose that nil-filing or credit filing amounts to tax larceny.

Complexities in taxation leading to credit filing may range from loss carried forward from previous year; specially-exempt category; tax refund; and investment or industrial deductions claims.

It is preposterous to imply the taxpayer either holds wrong, falsified or incorrect data and thus, must suffer inconvenience until the all-powerful commissioner is otherwise pleased.

The Tourism Fund is set to expand the 2.0 percent tourism levy to operators of short-term rentals sold through digital hospitality platforms such as Airbnb, Booking.com and Jumia in a bid to grow and modernise tourism revenue collection by taxing bookings at source.

The Tourism Fund (TF) says the shift, slated to start by the end of June, will bring online accommodation providers into the formal levy system, addressing enforcement gaps created by the rapid growth of short-term rentals and digital booking platforms.

Latest official figures from the State Department for Tourism show the Fund collected Sh5.1 billion from the levy in the year ended June 2025, falling short of Sh5.5 billion target.

This was, however, a growth from Sh4.9 billion collected in the year ended June 2024 and Sh3.9 billion in the year ended June 2023.

The Fund attributed the shortfall in the 2024/25 financial year largely to its inability to collect the levy from short-term rentals, including Airbnbs, homestays and villas, which operate largely outside traditional enforcement mechanisms.

TF chairperson Samson Some says there is no legal hurdle to collecting the tourism levy from online platforms, stressing that the challenge has been largely operational rather than legislative.

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

Under the Tourism law, regulated hotels, restaurants and other licensed tourism establishments are required to remit a two percent tourism levy on gross sales to the Tourism Fund.

Failure to remit the monthly levy by 10th of the following month attracts an instant fine of Sh5,000 in addition to a penalty of three percent of the amount due for each month it remains in arrears.

However, the expansion of short-term rentals has complicated compliance, particularly where operators manage multiple units within residential buildings or relocate properties while retaining the same online identity.

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

Under the proposed model, the levy would be deducted automatically at the point of booking, with platforms remitting the required amount directly to the Tourism Fund. The approach mirrors systems already in use in other African markets, notably Rwanda and South Africa.

In Rwanda, accommodation service providers – including short-term rental operators using platforms such as Airbnb – are required to pay a tourism tax of 3 percent of the amount paid by guests to the Rwanda Revenue Authority.

The tax, effective from July 2025, is collected directly from guests at the point of sale, with providers required to register with the tax authority and issue Electronic Billing Machine invoices.

South Africa has adopted a data-driven enforcement approach, where platforms such as Airbnb provide transaction details to the South African Revenue Service upon request.

The information includes host identities, gross earnings, platform fees, property addresses, rental periods and bank details, enabling authorities to track compliance without physically inspecting properties.

‘If $100 (about Sh12,900) is collected from a guest, a percentage is remitted directly through the system,’ Mr Some said. ‘That way, we don’t have to chase operators to their residences or follow properties that keep shifting locations.’

The TF plans to implement the system through third-party digital payment partners, similar to how Kenya’s eCitizen platform facilitates visa fee collection.

While the board had initially targeted a rollout in the current quarter (January-March), engagement with external providers has delayed implementation to the next quarter (April-June).

‘We were on schedule as a board, but this is not just a fund discussion -it involves third-party participants,’ Mr Some said. ‘We expect to have a system in place by next quarter.’

The Fund has called on short-term rental operators to formalise their businesses through licensing and membership in tourism associations, which Mr Some said offer legal protection, access to training and improved security.

As part of its capacity-building efforts, the Tourism Fund says it has certified more than 7,000 tourism workers nationwide through two-tier training programmes targeting technical staff and managers, covering areas such as housekeeping, security, financial management and destination marketing.

‘These are not just regulatory requirements,’ Mr Some said. ‘Training improves service quality and productivity, and it directly affects the bottom line for operators.’