Category: Business Daily

Knowledge tells you what to do. It does nothing about whether you actually do it. And the gap between the two is where almost everything happens’ –Nisha Shah.

On the Kenyan business scene, and in your organisation, does everything move in cycles, or in a straight line? Is there really a way to get ahead – to master evolution – on the business performance curve? What can one of the world’s most astute investors teach us about big picture patterns and cycles?

Ray Dalio built his roughly $20 billion fortune by founding and scaling Bridgewater Associates into the world’s largest hedge fund.

Performance varies significantly by year, generally in the range of a 11 to 12 percent annual return, with a record-breaking 33 percent gain in 2025. Starting the firm from his two-bedroom apartment in 1975, he grew it by pioneering systematic global macro investing, a unique corporate culture, and risk-managed strategies — paying attention to cycles.

Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order is Dalio’s 2021 book that examines history’s most turbulent economic and political periods to reveal why the times ahead will likely be radically different from those we’ve experienced in our lifetimes.

Dalio studied recent major empires, the Dutch, British, US and China -putting into perspective the ‘big cycle’ that has driven the successes and failures of all the world’s major countries throughout history.

Cycles define us

Everything in our universe moves in cycles. Planets orbit stars, stars orbit in galaxies, and time itself flows forward while repeating patterns like seasons and day-night cycles that define our reality. Moving from the universe and the macro of national economies, to the micro of the firm, it helps to notice cycles.

A S-curve is a useful way to think about the life cycle of a company, or development partner. You will notice your organisation rarely grows at a constant rate. It moves through phases where growth accelerates, but eventually slows as it approaches limits, and eventually declines, unless it creates a new source of growth. Just about every enterprise goes through four points on an S curve.

S Curve: experimentation

First stage is experimentation when product-market fit is uncertain and growth is slow. Second, often comes rapid growth where customers, revenues and capabilities compound. Maturity is the third phase with growth slowing and the market becoming saturated, with senior management assuming that past success will continue. Last, is decline, defending the old business, instead of reinventing it.

Key insight is that in stage 3 can look deceptively successful. Revenue may still be rising, profits may still be good and the company may have a strong brand. But the underlying growth engine is weakening.

Take Red Tree Design, a successful furniture manufacturer that develops an efficient factory, producing its established product range.

Initially, more production, with quantities of scale mean lower unit costs and higher profits. But eventually, with ‘more of same’ products flooding the market, it becomes saturated, competitors copy the product, customers’ tastes change, machinery becomes outdated and the company’s fixed-cost structure becomes a burden. In essence: the company’s capacity has grown faster than its ability to create new value.

Temptation is the ask: ‘How can we improve the existing business?’ But the smart manager, when approaching the top of its S-curve should instead ask: ‘What business should we create before the current business starts declining?’ Ideal is that you don’t wait until the old business is collapsing. You deliberately build the next S-curve while the existing S-curve is still healthy.

Instead of the old S-curve — innovation – growth – maturity then decline. Consider a new S-curve – experiment – discover – growth – then maturity

It’s a tough call, but the smart company begins investing in the second curve before the first one peaks. The astute aim isn’t simply to extend the life of the old curve. It is to transfer the organization from one curve to another.

Diagnosis — ask five questions

For some quick diagnosis, ask these five questions

1. Where are we on the current S-curve? Are we accelerating, plateauing or declining?

2. What is producing our growth? Is it new customers, existing customers, pricing, market expansion, or new products?

3. Are returns on additional investment falling? If doubling marketing, people, branches or equipment produces progressively less growth, one may be approaching the ceiling.

4. What assumptions made our current business successful? Are those assumptions now becoming liabilities? 5. Where is our next S-curve? What new customer, problem, technology, business model or market could create the next wave?

The counter-intuitive lesson is that the most dangerous moment for a company may not be when it is losing money. It may be when everything is going well, but growth is becoming increasingly difficult. Risk is that a company that waits for obvious decline has usually waited too long.

Don’t manage the company to maximize the current S-curve. Manage it to create the next one — the next evolution — before the current one peaks.

‘The reason people typically miss the big moments of evolution coming at them in life is because they experience only tiny pieces of what’s happening. We are like ants preoccupied with our jobs of carrying crumbs in our very brief lifetimes instead of having a broader perspective of the big-picture patterns and cycles, the important interrelated things driving them, where we are within the cycles, and what’s likely to transpire’ advises Dalio.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Nyeri has reignited the contentious issue of adverse possession-where a registered owner loses his or her parcel of land to a stranger.

The law allows a stranger to be registered as the owner of land through adverse possession if the trespasser occupies it uninterrupted for a period of 12 years. After that, the landowner is compelled to transfer the land to the stranger. This means that landowners must remain vigilant over the use and occupation of their land.

The matter pitted Ishmael Joram (the owner) against Ephantus Muriithi Obadiah (the squatter) and has dragged on for decades, culminating in a ruling in favour of Muriithi on the basis of adverse possession.

Courts have consistently held that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that they have occupied the land openly, without the licence or permission of the landowner, with the intention of possessing it, and that they have dispossessed the registered owner for the statutory period.

This goes beyond merely establishing that they have been in possession for twelve years. The burden of proving these elements lies with the claimant.

‘In our considered view, none of the actions by the appellant (Ishmael) effectively interrupted the possession of the suit property by the respondent (Muriithi). The verbal warnings, the demand letter and the suit for the cost of damaged trees, cannot be said to have interrupted the use of the land by the respondent,’ said the court.

Evidence presented in court showed that Muriithi is the son and legal administrator of the estate of the late Obadiah Kathanjagui, who was the plaintiff in the original suit filed in the Nyeri High Court in 1978.

Obadiah had initially sued Joram Gaciithire and Ishmael Joram, seeking to be registered as the owner of the land. By consent recorded in court in 1989, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the District Officer for arbitration, but the process never commenced.

Joram later passed away, and the claim against him abated, leaving the case to proceed against Ishmael.

Obadiah stated that he had occupied the suit land for more than 16 years and was therefore entitled to be registered as the owner by virtue of adverse possession. He said he found the land as bush but carried out extensive developments, including planting coffee.

On his part, Ishmael said his father had been allocated the land by his clan in 1960 but did not utilise it as he was working in Nairobi. He stated that he did not know exactly when Obadiah settled on the land, as he was often away, but had asked his father to tell Obadiah to vacate. Ishmael conceded that there were houses, as well as coffee and tea bushes, on the property.

In a judgment delivered on October 4, 2018, the Environment and Land Court (ELC) in Embu held that Muriithi had proved open, continuous and adverse possession of the land and was therefore entitled to it. Dissatisfied with the decision, Ishmael filed an appeal.

Muriithi argued that adverse possession began to run in 1961 and crystallised in 1973. It was his submission that Ishmael’s absence in Nairobi meant he could not reliably state when the occupation began.

A three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal found that Muriithi had proved he had been residing on the land quietly, peacefully and without resistance since 1960.

The court noted that he had developed the property, lived there with his family, constructed houses and planted crops for more than 12 years. He had even buried his wife and three children on the disputed land.

‘A look at the record of appeal shows that the appellant (Ishmael) testified and told the court that he worked in Nairobi from 1961 and used to visit the land occasionally and that it was empty. He reportedly only discovered in 1974 that the land had been cautioned and that one Obadiah had settled on it,’ noted the court.

Claim for adverse possession

The court further observed that the record consistently showed that Muriithi had no permission to occupy the property. ‘This in itself proves the first element in favour of the claim for adverse possession,’ said the court.

It also noted that Ishmael first saw a hut on the property in 1974 and asked his late father to have Obadiah vacate. ‘It seems he did not take any further action until when he wrote a demand letter dated 8th July, 2002 complaining about the trespass,’ said the court.

Although Ishmael later filed a case before a magistrate’s court over the destruction of trees, he did not attempt to evict the occupant.

‘We are in agreement with the ELC Judge that the appellant took a back seat in enforcing his property rights from 1960 when it was registered to him. He admitted in cross-examination that there were houses on the land, coffee and tea bushes, yet he himself was not the owner of those developments,’ said the court.

In an earlier case-Wambugu -v- Njuguna (1983)-the Court of Appeal held that adverse possession involves two key concepts: possession and discontinuance of possession.

The court further held that the proper test is whether the titleholder has been dispossessed or has discontinued possession for the statutory period, not merely whether the claimant has been in possession for the required number of years.

In Nakuru, Grace Wanjiru Wamae recently won a case against the estate of Mwangi Maingi, with the court directing that she be registered as the owner of a parcel of land she had occupied continuously for more than 12 years.

‘The Plaintiff (Grace) has proved that her possession is ‘nec vi, nec clam, nec precario’, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. Her possession is adequate in continuity, in publicity and adverse to the true owner,’ said the court in a ruling on February 9, 2026.

The court directed that the parcel of land measuring approximately 1.5166 hectares, which she had occupied continuously, be registered in her name within 180 days.

Not all adverse possession claims succeed, however.

In a recent ruling, an ELC court in Nyandarua dismissed a claim by a group of 580 women who sought ownership of two parcels of land-measuring about 300 acres and 800 acres-in Ol-Kalou, Nyandarua County, belonging to the estate of former Nyandarua North MP JM Kariuki.

The dispute dates back about 51 years. The women, under the Nyakinyua Ndorua Kanini Kega Farmers Company, sued the widows of the late MP, seeking to be declared owners of the land through adverse possession.

They initially claimed the land had been gifted to them by the late MP, but the transfer was never completed following his assassination. They argued that they had remained in occupation and use of the land without interruption.

However, the court noted that previous decisions had ordered them to vacate the land.

‘As soon as the Judgment in Court of Appeal in Nakuru Court of Appeal Case No. 107 of 1987 was delivered on 28/9/1988 and the moment the Plaintiffs were told to move out and refused, they became trespassers under Section 3 of the Trespass Act,’ said the court while dismissing the claim for adverse possession.

What happens when an employee takes study leave abroad and never comes back? Can an employer dismiss them immediately for failing to resume duty, or must formal disciplinary process be followed? And how long should an employer wait before treating staff’s absence as desertion of duty?

A recent labour court case involving a government employee who stayed in the US after completing his studies offers a cautionary lesson on the line between a boss’s right to terminate employment and the duty to follow due process.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has faulted the Health ministry for dismissing a radiation protection officer, who failed to return to Kenya after moving to the US for further studies.

The court found that although the ministry had a valid reason to terminate Kibet Korir’s employment, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because he was not issued a show cause notice or subjected to a disciplinary hearing.

However, the court dismissed his Sh8.4 million damages claim after finding the suit was time-barred.

Mr Korir joined the ministry in 2004 as a radiation protection officer and was promoted to principal radiation protection officer in 2010, at a salary of Sh114,840.

In 2007, he was enrolled for a PhD in Radiological Science and Protection programme at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. His sponsorship was approved in February 2008 at Sh2.2 million, subject to a three-year bond and remission of 20 percent of his basic salary in a lump sum upon completion of the course, recoverable by instalments.

The ministry later suspended the approval, saying the four-year programme would cost Sh8.5 million and was not required under the scheme of service for radiation protection officers.

Mr Korir appealed and eventually received approval for the course with funding of Sh2.2 million in June 2009. He left Kenya in August 2008 and was expected to complete the programme in August 2012.

He obtained a Master of Science degree in Radiological Science and Protection in February 2012 and a PhD in May 2013.

He did not return to his job after leaving Kenya, prompting the ministry to dismiss him by a letter dated June 24, 2016, effective August 1, 2013, citing desertion of duty.

The dismissal letter said Mr Korir owed the ministry Sh838,350 for salary and allowances he received while away without rendering service. He appealed that decision to the Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking a review, but received no response.

He filed the court case in July 2022, seeking more than Sh8.4 million in allowances, compensation, service pay and other benefits. Mr Korir testified that after leaving in 2008, he only came back for research, not to work.

He confirmed in court that he works as a professor in New Jersey, US. He also testified that the dismissal was overturned by the PSC, which approved negotiations on payment, but the court observed that, though the consent was reached, it was not executed by the Permanent

Secretary, Ministry of Health and Sanitation. Hence, it was ineffectual.

In response, the ministry argued that the claim was time-barred under Section 90 of the Employment Act, which requires job-related claims to be filed in court within three years of the act, neglect or default complained of.

Justice Jacob Gakeri agreed that in Mr Korir’s case the three-year limitation period had expired.

The court found that, having been dismissed in June 2016, Mr Korir was required to file the court dispute within three years, by June 2019, but he filed it in July 2022, more than three years after the statutory deadline.

It said the period runs from termination and is not stopped by an internal appeal, negotiations or other dispute-resolution efforts.

‘Time does not stop running merely because parties are engaged in out- of-court negotiations,’ the judge said, striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

But the court separately considered how Mr Korir would have fared if he had sued within time. He found that the ministry had a valid reason to terminate him because he had not resumed duty after his studies.

‘Thus, the respondent had valid and fair reasons to terminate the claimant’s employment,’ Justice Gakeri said.

The court found that the ministry had failed to prove that it followed the required disciplinary process. Mr Korir had not been given a hearing or a notice to show cause, although he could have been reached by mail or email.

‘The court finds that termination of the claimant’s employment was procedurally flawed and thus unfair within the meaning of section 45 of the Employment Act,’ the court stated.

The court rejected Mr Korir’s claims for Sh8.4 million in house, commuter, health-risk, extraneous and government-sponsored trainee allowances. It found that he gave no particulars showing when the payments fell due.

His Sh516,780 service-pay claim was also unproved. The court said Korir was not an NSSF member then and could be entitled to pension for his years of service.

The court said he was entitled to a certificate of service, which the ministry was required to provide within 45 days.

Family Bank’s net profit rose 61.8 percent to Sh3.7 billion in the half-year ended June 2026, supported by a faster growth in income from lending compared with operating costs.

The rise in net earnings from Sh2.28 billion posted in the preceding similar period was fuelled by a 40.7 percent growth in net interest income to Sh9.79 billion, up from Sh6.95 billion.

The lender increased its lending, issuing Sh48.8 billion in new loans over the six months. About Sh35.6 billion went to retail and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), while commercial customers took up Sh15.2 billion.

‘These numbers are as a result of commitment, collaboration, strategic clarity, disciplined execution of our strategy and the support received from various stakeholders,’ Nancy Njau, the chief executive officer of Family Bank said.

Despite the Sh48.8 billion in new loans, the review period showed the loan book grew by Sh10.1 billion to Sh111.06 billion. Family Bank chief finance officer Paul Ngaragari explained that the variance is due to the short-term loans of MSMEs whose maturity came before the end of the review period.

‘We are an MSME-focused business entity, and for small businesses, most of the loans are short-term, meaning they take a loan and repay within a period of three months or less,’ said Mr Ngaragari.

‘That is why the absolute growth in the loan book is by about Sh11 billion against close to Sh50 billion in new loans. MSMEs’ financial needs are largely short-term, but the volumes are quite high.’

During the review period, non-interest income fell 14.2 percent to Sh2.3 billion. Operating expenses rose 10.6 percent to Sh7.42 billion from Sh6.7 billion as the lender bucked the sector trend with a 50.5 percent rise in provisioning for loan defaults to Sh998.25 million from Sh663.5 million.

The increased provisioning for loan defaults came in the period gross non-performing loans hit Sh18.14 billion from Sh15.22 billion.

The lender said several borrowers who fell into default due to Covid-19 disruptions were yet to normalise repayments, thereby contributing to the stock of NPLs that drove the NPL ratio to 14.9 percent from 13.7 percent.

‘Our interest is not just to report good numbers. Our interest is also to protect the asset that we are entrusted with by our shareholders and the economy at large. We are very deliberate in ensuring that the required accounting standards are followed,’ said Mr Ngaragari.

The lender, which started in 1984 and converted into a fully-fledged commercial bank in 2007, listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange on June 23, 2026, at Sh18.

The share hit Sh50 on the debut day on the bourse and now trades above Sh33, giving investors a gain of over 83 percent.

In the year ended December 2025, Family Bank increased its dividend per share payout to Sh1.20 from Sh0.85 following a 55.4 percent jump in net profit to Sh5.37 billion.

Two more global cross-border payment platforms have stopped receiving and sending cash to Kenya amid increased anti-money laundering scrutiny across nations.

US firm Sendwave and UK-based money transfer firm Wise have stopped cash transfer services for the majority of Kenyan users from August, with the American firm citing technical difficulties.

They join cash and cryptocurrency transfer firm Hurupay, which froze Kenya operations. US payments giant PayPal last month suspended services for a section of Kenyan users.

Kenya has been under increased scrutiny for illicit cash flows and is on the list of countries at high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placing the country on its “grey list.”

These checks make global payment firms spend heavily on tracking transfers and other compliance mandates, leading some to pull out rather than risk violations and punishments.

‘Due to technical difficulties, we’re currently unable to offer wallet services in Kenya. We know how important it is to have access to your money, and we’re sorry for the inconvenience this may cause,’ Sendwave told a Kenyan user in an email seen by the Business Daily.

Sendwave allows customers to create multi-currency digital wallets through a mobile app for cross-border cash transfer.

Sendwave said it was ‘unsure’ how long it would take to fix the ‘technical difficulties’ while advising users to withdraw the cash balances in virtual wallets.

Last month, Sendwave was cited in a Kenyan court as one of the platforms used to wire cash from the US in a Sh300 million money laundering case involving local bank accounts and cryptocurrency networks.

Detectives said they had requested international transaction data from the US government to trace the origins of the money.

The company did not respond to Business Daily’s queries. On its website, it still lists Kenya among the African countries it serves.

Some Kenyan users on the Wise platform have also reported restrictions from July ahead of account closures in October.

The firm allows Kenyans to receive money from holders of US dollar, Euro and British Pound accounts abroad directly into their local Shilling bank accounts and M-Pesa mobile wallets.

‘We’ve restricted your account and will close it on October 3,’ the company told a user via email. ‘You can no longer send and receive money, or use your card.’

Wise did not disclose the reasons for the suspension.

In July, Hurupay stopped processing cross-border money transfers and cryptocurrencies in Kenya.

The firm provides individuals and businesses with virtual US dollar, euro and sterling bank accounts that can be used to receive payments easily, send money globally, or convert funds into cryptocurrencies such as stablecoins.

It did not disclose the reasons for the decision. It also dropped Kenya and Nigeria from the list of African countries it serves.

“We would like to inform you that Hurupay no longer supports USD banking services for customers in Kenya,” an email from the firm to a Kenyan user read.

“As a result, any payments sent to your SSB bank account will be rejected and automatically refunded to the sender.”

It came weeks after PayPal froze an unknown number of local accounts and stopped them from transferring or withdrawing cash for failing to prove their employment and residence.

Since July, some Kenyans have also reported failed cash transfers on the US-based money transfer and virtual cards issuer Chipper Cash.

Digital cross-border payment platforms are popular in Kenya among Kenyan freelancers, consultants and businesses because they allow them to receive payments from overseas clients and transfer funds to local bank accounts or M-Pesa wallets.

Families with members abroad also use them to receive money from overseas.

These users prefer internet-based money transfer platforms over traditional bank transfers mainly because they offer multi-currency accounts that bypass interbank networks such as SWIFT, which can be slow and carry high intermediary bank fees.

Kenyans who shop online and do not want to share their credit card or bank details also opt for platforms like PayPal.

Some platforms, which support cryptocurrencies, such as Hurupay, are also attractive for Kenyans making payments or receiving payments in stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency backed by assets such as the US dollar.

Crypto and digital payments have been exploited for criminal activities due to features such as pseudonymity and borderless transfers, which make them harder for traditional financial institutions and law enforcement agencies to detect.

The Paris-based FATF added Kenya to its list of countries under special scrutiny in February 2024 due to loopholes in countering money laundering and terrorism financing.

When a country is grey-listed, its banks face tighter due diligence from foreign lenders, some international transactions are delayed, and investors flag compliance risk in country assessments.

The world’s largest crypto exchange, Binance, has also frozen an undisclosed number of local user accounts.

The UAE-based firm has barred the users from converting their crypto holdings into cash, following an order from the Kenyan government.

Binance also faces global scrutiny over accusations of money laundering and aiding US-designated terrorist organisations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, to move money.

Globally, Wise is currently under investigation in Europe over allegations that it failed to adequately identify customers and verify their activities amid suspicions that criminals used the platform for money laundering.

Pension schemes have increased their bets on quoted equities, moving billions of shillings from government securities to the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) amid rising share prices and falling bond yields.

Fresh data by the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA) shows the pension schemes’ holdings of quoted equities rose by Sh130.51 billion to Sh443.35 billion in the six months to June 2026, representing a 41.72 percent increase from Sh312.84 billion in December last year.

The increase lifted equities’ share of total pension assets to a five-year high of 14.37 percent from 11.13 percent at the end of last year.

The allocation was last higher in December 2021, when equities accounted for 16.45 percent of pension assets.

The increased exposure to shares came as holdings of government securities fell by Sh35.14 billion, or 2.4 percent, to Sh1.43 trillion from Sh1.47 trillion.

This reduced the share of government paper in pension portfolios to a four-year low of 46.35 percent from 52.14 percent.

The Sh443.35 billion allocation in equities is a 73.8 percent rise from Sh255.2 billion in June last year, showing that the shift to the NSE has persisted over a 12-month period.

The RBA attributed the reallocation partly to the easing monetary policy environment, which has put downward pressure on yields on new government debt and made equities relatively more attractive.

The indicative Central Bank Rate fell from 9 percent in January to 8.75 percent in February and remained at that level through June.

‘For pension schemes, this lower-interest-rate environment continues to exert downward pressure on yields on new government debt and fixed deposits,’ the RBA said.

‘This dynamic is accelerating the reallocation of capital away from traditional fixed income instruments toward higher-yielding equities and alternative asset classes.’

The movement into shares has coincided with a strong recovery at the NSE, supported by improved corporate earnings, dividend payouts and renewed investor confidence.

The NSE 20-Share Index and Nairobi All Share Index each gained about 20 percent in the first half of the year, reaching 3,755.44 points and 224.15 points, respectively. Market capitalisation increased by 28 percent to Sh3.76 trillion during this period.

The listing of Family Bank in June, coming after the Kenya Pipeline Company initial public offering in March, also contributed to increased liquidity and investor participation.

The RBA said sustained price rallies in key blue-chip counters enabled equities to absorb part of the capital rotated from lower-yielding fixed-income assets.

‘Building on a 41.72 percent growth in the first half of 2026, this 12-month period reflects market trajectory, strong confidence and sustained rallies in key blue-chip counters, allowing equities to absorb much of the capital rotated out of lower-yielding fixed-income assets,’ said the RBA.

The pension industry’s exposure to quoted shares remains concentrated in a few sectors. Banking accounted for 47.04 percent of the Sh443.35 billion equity portfolio, followed by telecommunications and technology at 31.26 percent and energy and petroleum at 15.1 percent. The three sectors accounted for 93.41 percent of pension schemes’ quoted equity holdings.

The lower interest-rate environment has also affected fixed deposits, with pension schemes reducing their allocation to the asset class by 15 percent to Sh48.02 billion from Sh56.5 billion.

The movement out of traditional fixed-income assets formed part of a broader diversification of pension portfolios.

The four largest asset classes-government securities, guaranteed funds, quoted equities and property-accounted for 88.04 percent of total assets in June, down from 90.43 percent in December.

Guaranteed funds grew 14.29 percent during the six months to Sh597.07 billion, while offshore investments rose 24 percent to Sh105.69 billion.

Businessman John Ngumi’s fight against the anti-graft agency’s continued investigation of the Sh6 billion Telkom Kenya sale deal has shifted to the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes court.

The Constitutional and Human Rights Court ruled that the case belongs in the specialised division because it directly challenges a corruption investigation by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).

The EACC was investigating whether the government irregularly acquired a 60 percent stake in Telkom Kenya from Jamhuri Holdings for Sh6 billion in 2022.

The commission said the acquisition proceeded without approval from the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), a legal opinion from the Attorney-General and the transaction not meeting the threshold for unforeseen and unavoidable expenditure under public finance rules.

Mr Ngumi was an adviser to Jamhuri Holdings, the vehicle through which private equity firm Helios Investment Partners held its Telkom stake, earning a pay cheque of $3.07 million (Sh397 million) for the job.

The EACC completed its inquiry in August 2023 and forwarded recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions for charges against Mr Ngumi and other officials and executives linked to the transaction.

The recommended charges included conspiracy to commit an economic crime, 15 counts of abuse of office, conflict of interest, two counts of willful failure to comply with procurement laws, fraudulent acquisition of property, money laundering, acquisition of proceeds of crime and neglect of official duty.

Mr Ngumi moved to court in June 2026, challenging EACC’s continued investigation after the DPP failed to prosecute him.

He argues that the continued probe is unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, oppressive and procedurally unfair, contrary to Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution.

He wants the court to terminate the investigation and related enforcement actions.

He applied for a declaration that the investigations relating to him in respect of the advisory role were conclusively closed upon the decision of the DPP declining prosecution, and that any continuation of the same is unlawful and unconstitutional.

The petitioner is also seeking a permanent injunction against further investigations, summonses or enforcement action, a closure notice, clearance certificate and damages for alleged violation of his constitutional rights.

EACC opposed the petition’s continued hearing in the Constitutional and Human Rights Division, saying it directly concerns the commission’s statutory investigation of corruption and economic crime.

The commission said the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division was established to handle such disputes and relied on practice directions requiring cases within its mandate to be transferred where hearing has not begun.

Mr Ngumi opposed the transfer, arguing that his petition principally concerned constitutional rights and that moving it would delay a matter already admitted and given directions.

Justice David Mburu rejected the argument, finding that the petition arose directly from an EACC investigation into alleged corrupt dealings and misuse of public resources.

‘The pleadings confirm that the dispute arises from the investigation into alleged corrupt deals by the Petitioner. The respondent (EACC) states that the investigation is under review by the ODPP to guide on whether to charge the Petitioner,’ the court said in the July 31, 2026 ruling.

EACC told the court that the investigation concerns the alleged misuse of public resources, including a government vehicle, and falls within the commission’s legal mandate.

The judge said it would be inappropriate for the Constitutional and Human Rights Division to hear a dispute falling within the mandate of the specialized division.

The court found that the petition was fresh and ‘squarely falls under the AC and EC Division’.

The case will be mentioned before the anti-corruption division’s Presiding Judge on September 21 for directions.

One thing I have come to realise is that the world is evolving faster than ever, and with that change comes an opportunity for all of us to rethink how we lead, work and build our institutions. Lately, I have come across conversations on social media and with fellow colleagues who work closely with young people. A common theme is that Gen Z can be difficult to understand, engage or lead. I see it differently.

Rather than viewing this generation as a challenge, I believe we should see them as a reflection of a changing world.

While organisations need structure, accountability and clear lines of responsibility, we are also engaging with a generation that was raised to question, think critically and believe that merit, effort and competence should create opportunities to contribute. Those qualities, when properly nurtured, can be powerful assets for any organisation.

Perhaps this is why the familiar phrase that “the youth are the leaders of tomorrow” rings increasingly hollow. In Kenya, more than 70 percent of the population is under 35, yet young people remain underrepresented in many spaces where important decisions are made.

These are the new demographics that will replace all customer perceptions and decision-making in multiple boardrooms. Rather than only viewing youth as future leaders, we should recognise them as contributors to today’s solutions.

Technology is transforming industries, customer expectations continue to evolve, and new ways of working are emerging every day. In this environment, effective leadership requires both experience and adaptability. It requires wisdom from those who have navigated challenges over time and insight from those who are closest to emerging trends and changing realities.

Young people bring valuable perspectives to this conversation. Having grown up in a digital, highly connected world, they are often quick to embrace change, explore new ideas, and identify opportunities that others may overlook. Their value extends beyond age itself. It lies in the unique lens through which they view today’s challenges and tomorrow’s possibilities.

This is why youth inclusion should never be viewed as a favour or a box-ticking exercise.

The most successful institutions recognise that diversity of thought strengthens decision-making. Experience and youth are not opposing forces. They are complementary strengths. One brings perspective gained over years of practice, while the other brings fresh insight into emerging realities. Together, they create stronger and more resilient organisations.

However, meaningful inclusion goes beyond offering young people a seat at the table.

It means creating opportunities for them to contribute to strategy, innovation and decision-making. It means listening to their views, investing in their development and trusting them with responsibility. When young professionals feel valued and empowered, organisations benefit from greater creativity, engagement and long-term sustainability.

Beyond representation, we have a responsibility to create pathways for young people to participate actively in the economy. Government initiatives such as the Access to Government Procurement Opportunities and the National Youth Opportunities Towards Advancement programmes have opened important doors for youth-owned enterprises.

Financial institutions can build on these efforts by expanding access to finance, financial literacy and business support, enabling more young entrepreneurs to grow sustainable businesses and create employment opportunities for others.

However, like all leaders, young professionals must demonstrate accountability, good judgement and a commitment to continuous learning. Leadership is built on competence, character and results, regardless of age.

Moving beyond youth rhetoric is not simply about giving young people a seat at the table.

It is about recognising that the strongest institutions are those that bring together the wisdom of experience and the energy of new perspectives to shape a better future for all.

The question is no longer whether young people are ready to lead. The real opportunity lies in how effectively we create environments where every generation can lead together.

We often assume innovation needs freedom. Remove the barriers, reduce the rules and let creative people build. It sounds logical. Yet some of the most interesting innovations emerge when the opposite happens: someone is told there is a boundary they cannot cross, and that limitation forces them to find a better route.

That is the counterintuitive power of constraints, the boundary that appears to restrict innovation can sometimes create the conditions for it. Regulation can create a clearly defined problem that did not previously have an obvious owner. It can force organisations to rethink inefficient processes, develop new technologies and discover opportunities hidden inside compliance requirements.

The important distinction is that not every constraint produces innovation. Poorly designed regulation can certainly suffocate innovation. But appropriate constraints can create the pressure, clarity and certainty needed for organisations to innovate with purpose.

Consider what happens when regulation raises the bar on environmental requirements pushing manufacturers to develop cleaner technologies rather than simply accept lower performance.

As governments introduced increasingly stringent emissions standards, manufacturers could no longer simply optimise vehicles around the old measures of performance. They had to find ways to reduce harmful emissions while preserving, and eventually improving, efficiency and performance.

The regulation did not tell engineers exactly what to invent. It created a problem that had to be solved. Catalytic converters, fuel-injection systems and hybrid powertrains emerged as part of that broader technological response.

The constraint became an innovation imperative. In financial services, restrictions around established payment mechanisms contributed to the development of electronic alternatives.

Healthcare privacy requirements have accelerated investment in secure data management, encryption and digital patient services. In each case, the regulation did not specify the innovation. It created a problem that innovators were compelled to solve.

This distinction between prescribing the solution and defining the outcome is critical. Regulation becomes a much more powerful innovation catalyst when it says what must be achieved rather than dictating exactly how it must be achieved.

A safety requirement can stimulate dozens of technological approaches; a prescriptive technical specification may limit the field to the technologies regulators already understand.

The World Economic Forum’s analysis reinforces this principle, arguing that modern regulatory design must balance safety and experimentation while keeping legal frameworks adaptable as technology changes.

There is another counterintuitive effect: regulation can create markets. RegTech is perhaps the clearest example. As compliance obligations expanded following the global financial crisis, organisations faced a growing need to automate monitoring, reporting and risk management.

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, advanced analytics and other technologies increasingly became tools for solving those problems. What began as a compliance burden helped create an entirely new technology category.

But there is a deeper lesson here for leaders. The competitive advantage may not come from complying with regulation. It may come from becoming exceptionally good at solving the problems regulation creates.

When compliance capabilities reduce operating costs, improve customer experience or create proprietary technology, compliance stops being merely defensive. It becomes a capability competitors have to catch up with.

That shift requires organisations to change where compliance sits in the innovation process. If compliance enters after the product has been designed, it is naturally experienced as friction.

If regulatory expertise is present when the problem is being framed, the same requirement becomes a design parameter. The question changes from ‘How do we get around this requirement?’ to ‘What could we build because this requirement exists?’

Regulators, meanwhile, face their own version of the challenge. They cannot simply remove constraints in the hope that innovation will flourish. They must create enough certainty to encourage investment while preserving enough flexibility for experimentation.

Sandboxes, phased authorisations, risk-based boundaries and adaptive frameworks provide mechanisms for doing precisely that. This perhaps that is the most useful way to think about the future of regulation.

The question is therefore not whether regulation constrains innovation. It inevitably will. The more important question is whether we design those constraints intelligently. The best regulatory systems do not simply tell innovators where they cannot go. They create enough certainty to move, enough freedom to experiment, and enough trust for others to follow.

The most powerful constraint may not close the door. It may change the architecture of the room.

Unit trust funds putting investor funds into select listed stocks have trailed returns of the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) as the schemes struggle to deliver market-beating returns.

Equity funds have posted an average return of 16.6 percent since the start of the year compared to Nairobi bourse gains of 26 percent over the same period.

The performance of the schemes reveals the challenge of beating the market through select stock picks even as unit trusts offer portfolio diversification to retail investors eyeing the Nairobi bourse.

NCBA equity fund delivered the highest return among peers on a year-to-date basis at 21.1 percent, with the price of its unit trust rising to Sh276.41 from Sh228.24 at the end of 2025.

Other equity funds that publish daily pricing data posted varying returns, including Britam at 18.8 percent, CIC at 17.8 percent, African Alliance at 15.2 percent and ICEA at 10 percent.

Equity funds invest mainly in listed shares for long-term capital appreciation.

Issuers of equity funds package selected individual stocks into a single basket with a set price for investors.

A unit holder generates a gain or loss from the fund when the price of the basket changes, depending on the cost of the selected individual stocks.

An equity fund offers investors an opportunity to have exposure to multiple stocks without buying directly into each counter or multiple stocks directly.

Equity funds offer low entry hurdles for retail investors, including a minimum investment of as low as Sh500 with fees ranging from two to three percent.

Low entry points give investors exposure to a variety of counters at affordable rates.

Industry players reckon the performance of equity funds can trail the main bourse for a variety of factors, including price movement of constituent stocks and weighting of shares in the pool.

These funds focus on long-term growth but carry higher risk than money market funds due to market ups and downs.

‘Some equity funds may be holding high cash amounts and may have sold off holdings in stocks having assessed the market as overvalued. Smaller funds are also likely to have marked huge client withdrawals,’ said Richard Muriithi, a portfolio manager at ICEA Lion Asset Management (ILAM).

‘Asset allocation becomes a big differentiator when looking at the performance of an equity fund before delving into underlying holdings, their weighting within the portfolio and how they performed.’

Retail investors buying shares directly at the Nairobi bourse made higher returns compared to the equity fund unit trusts, which pool money from many investors to buy company shares.

The top five counters at the NSE on gains are Car and General, whose share appreciated 247.5 percent since the start of the year, Britam Holdings (102.7 percent), Agrica Mega Agricorp (76.9 percent), Shri Kishana Overseas (70.9 percent) and EA Portland Cement (63.2 percent).

However, the NSE had laggards in the middle of the boom such as Eveready East Africa whose share price fell 27 percent, WPP ScanGroup (-18 percent), Home Africa (-11.1 percent), Umeme Limited (-10.2 percent) and Kurwitu Ventures (-9.6 percent).

Equity funds pride themselves in being able to offer steady returns even in a market downturn scenario by setting aside cash which can be deployed in high-yielding cash instruments to offset losses.

The uptake of equity funds in the Kenyan market has nevertheless been subdued by largely risk-averse investors who would rather settle for stable returns from instruments such as money market funds (MMFs).

Equity funds only made up 0.6 percent of collective investment schemes (CISs)/unit trusts assets at the end of March this year or Sh4.75 billion, albeit a jump from Sh3.5 billion in December 2025.

MMFs contrasted sharply with a market share of 51.9 percent or Sh442.1 billion in assets, while special funds were second with a 23.9 percent market share or Sh203.5 billion in assets.

Equity funds remain the main tool for investor diversification into NSE-listed stocks as instruments like mutual/index funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) covering local equities remain absent from the market.

The Capital Markets Authority (CMA) had approved 15 equity funds as of March, compared to 58 MMFs and 38 special funds.