Category: Business Daily

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.

Night flights are yet to resume on the revamped main runway at Wilson Airport, more than two weeks after it was partially reopened for daytime operations, resulting in prolonged inconvenience for airline operators who still have to queue for services on a secondary taxiway after sunset.

Commercial flights predominantly land at Wilson Airport on runway 7 via the Bomas- Uhuru Gardens route. Runway 07 had, however, been temporarily shut for about seven months to allow for upgrades, with airlines reverting to runway 14/32, which is approached through the Kibera-Nyayo Highrise route.

Runway 07 was reopened by the Kenya Airports Authority (KAA) from Wednesday, July 29, 2026, for daytime flights between 6.30 am and 6.30 pm.

KAA attributed the delayed resumption of night flights on the main runway at Wilson Airport to pending approvals by the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority (KCAA) on the facility’s rehabilitated visual aid lights.

KAA told Business Daily that the contractor working on runway 07 had interfered with the Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) system during the rehabilitation works, hence the repairs which now require KCAA’s nod before it can be reopened for night flights.

An AGL system refers to the network of specialised lights that are installed along runways, taxiways and approach areas to help pilots safely navigate and land at an airport, especially in low-visibility and night conditions.

‘The AGL issue has been rectified, but for night operations to resume, KCAA approval is required. The night flights have not resumed yet as we are waiting for the approvals. However, the runway works were completed, and the runway was opened for day flights between 6.30 am and 6.30 pm.’ KAA said.

The development means airlines operating from Wilson are still unable to use the refurbished Runway 07 for flights arriving or departing after 6.30 pm, which limits the benefits of the reopening.

Runway 07 was reopened on July 29 after nearly six months of rehabilitation, ending a period in which airlines had to share Runway 14/32 for both take-offs and landings. The arrangement had resulted in congestion, longer aircraft turnaround times and higher fuel consumption as aircraft waited for clearance.

Safarilink, Renegade Air, Airkenya Express and other domestic carriers adjusted their schedules to accommodate the works, forcing some carriers to shift part of their operations to Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA).

Safarilink Aviation CEO, Alex Avedi, previously told Business Daily that airlines were at times forced to keep several aircraft engines running while waiting to take off, which increased their operational costs.

The reopening of Runway 07 was expected to ease congestion and restore more predictable schedules, particularly for airlines serving domestic and regional destinations.

However, the continued restriction on night operations means carriers whose flights arrive after 6.30 pm from destinations such as Kisumu, Mombasa, the Coast and Zanzibar must continue using the alternative runway or diverting operations to JKIA.

When the Kwale lands court conducted a site visit to a 10-acre parcel in Diani on February 28, 2025, the judge was looking for signs of decades-old occupation by four families as claimed in a case before him.

The families of Mohamed Mambo, Juma Kimbirwa, Suleiman Mwalali and Mwinyi Juma Bugu had claimed that at the time property developers started putting up luxury villas on the land, they had occupied it for between 20 and 40 years.

By the time of the site visit, all the original plaintiffs had died, and their children – Halima Mambo, Kadiri Juma Kimbirwa, Nasoro Juma Mwalali and Mahmoud Mwinyi Mwabugu – had taken their parents’ place in the case.

The four families sued Richard Livingstone Hawkins, John Edward Leslie, Orbit Developments Ltd, Bhupinder Singh Knowle and Gur Bux Singh Nagi in 2006.

While they maintained that the 10-acre property was their ancestral land, in court they wanted to be recognised as owners through the doctrine of adverse possession.

Adverse possession exists in law to protect squatters’ rights, by granting them legal ownership of land they have occupied uninterrupted for 12 years.

The Kekes claimed to have lived on the land for 40 years, while the Bugii family said it had occupied its plot for 25 years. The Mambos claimed 20 years, and the Kimbirwas 18 years.

The four families said they had houses, livestock and graves on the land at the time the defendants started construction.

During the court’s February, 2025 site visit, there was no tangible evidence of earlier occupation of the land before the developers started putting up the villas.

In the end, the court noted that the story presented by the four families had too many gaps. While they claimed to have occupied the land for between 18 and 40 years, none of them stated when exactly they settled on the property.

The court dismissed the 20-year-old case, in a move that has further defined the evidence test in adverse possession claims.

The families sued in 2006. Two years later, they were directed to serve the court papers through substituted service, which usually includes newspaper advertisements.

In 2009 the court delivered judgment in favour of the four families as there was no response.

In March, 2010, the defendant filed an application seeking to set aside that decision, arguing that they were not aware of the case’s existence. The court allowed that application. The case then dragged on in what the court said was unnecessary delays.

The four families have filed a notice of appeal against the High Court decision.

They have also filed an application seeking to block any development on, sale, transfer or any interference with the land pending their appeal. That application is still pending determination.

The court noted that during the site visit, that there were no breadcrumbs which could lead to a conclusion that the land had been occupied prior to the developers starting construction.

‘Indeed, from the site visit conducted by the Court apart from a few indigenous trees, there were no such evidence such as debris of the demolished structures, ploughed land, livestock yards/paddocks or mature, graveyards (taking that all the Plaintiffs are now deceased) and so forth no it,’ the court said in its judgment dismissing the claim by the four families.

‘In fact, the graves that the plaintiff seem to claim to have used to bury their parents were nowhere to be seen as documented by the Court during the site visit,’ the judgment further reads.

Lawyers for the four families had claimed that there were graves on the land, where various deceased kin from multiple generations had been buried.

But the defendants maintained that they had purchased the land and attached title deeds and documents demonstrating their acquisition process.

They also argued that the four families had not indicated when they settled on the land, to enable computation of the 12 years occupation contemplated in Kenyan law for adverse possession to kick in.

Orbit Developments Ltd held that other neighbours had filed affidavits in court stating that the defendants were the only ones who had ever been seen taking possession of the 10-acre land.

The plaintiffs claimed that they were born and raised on the land, and had lived on it for years but did not produce birth certificates or identity cards which would indicate their place of birth.

None of the plaintiffs was able to point out exactly where on the property their homes stood.

‘There was no evidence of birth such as certificate or identity cards, letters from the location Chief; or proof and evidence of their neighbours. By any standards, having lived on a parcel of land for this period there ought to have been certain tangible traces of that. None of them indicated where they were currently living on the land by the time of tendering their evidence,’ the court noted.

The four families did not explain how they left the land, as none of them had claimed to have been evicted.

‘From the evidence, the plaintiffs were aware that the suit land were legally registered to the owners. Subsequently, they registered caution against the land but which were removed by the Land Registrar. Despite of the removal of the caution, the registered proprietors of the land never forcefully evicted the plaintiffs from the land. They vacated it freely and voluntarily,’ the judgment reads in part.

Shareholders of companies listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) will bank Sh74.95 billion from dividends in the weeks to October, reaping from a surge in share prices.

The dividend payouts have emerged as an important source of liquidity for individuals and businesses in an economy that is still grappling with costly credit and shrunken payslips.

While the dividends will offer a boost to the economy and demand for goods and services in corporate Kenya, 45 percent of the cash, or Sh33 billion, will be repatriated from the country by multinational shareholders with stakes in the firms.

Safaricom, East Africa Breweries Limited (EABL), KCB Group, BAT Kenya, Stanbic Holdings, Absa Bank Kenya and NCBA Group will start paying dividends from August 30 and early November.

Others are Car and General, Kapchorua Tea, Williamson Tea, Crown Paints, Liberty Kenya Holdings and Laptrust Imara I-Reit.

The majority of companies reported higher profits this year, allowing them to increase their payouts to shareholders by 42 percent, or Sh22.3 billion, from the Sh52.7 billion the 13 companies paid out in the same period last year.

The dividends are a mix of interim and final payouts, depending on the financial reporting calendar of individual companies.

‘The higher dividends are top-line-driven, with the falling cost of financing on their balance sheets also creating space for higher dividends. The banks and other companies such as Safaricom, EABL and Car and General have recently reported record profits that have given them money to reward shareholders,’ said Wesley Manambo, a senior research associate at Standard Investment Bank.

Safaricom is making the biggest distribution at Sh46.08 billion, which will be paid out on September 4 to shareholders who were on the company’s register by August 4.

The payment relates to the telco’s final dividend of Sh1.15 per share that was declared in May when it released its financial results for the year ended March 2026, in which net profit was up 37 percent to Sh95.6 billion.

In the previous year, the company’s final dividend was Sh0.65 per share, meaning it distributed Sh26 billion at this time in 2025.

KCB will pay Sh9.64 billion in interim dividends on November 10 at a rate of Sh3 per share. The bank announced its half-year results last week, where its net profit rose 14.2 percent to Sh36 billion.

In 2025, its half-year interim dividend was Sh2 per share, but it also paid out a special dividend of Sh2 per unit from the proceeds of the sale of National Bank of Kenya to Nigerian lender Access Plc.

Other banks that have already declared interim dividends are NCBA, Stanbic and Absa, which will make their respective payouts on September 8, September 15 and October 15.

NCBA is paying out Sh6.18 billion after raising its interim dividend for the half year to June to Sh3.75 per share from Sh2.50 a year earlier, while Stanbic will distribute Sh1.5 billion after halving its dividend to Sh1.64 from Sh3.80 per share.

Absa announced an enhanced interim dividend of Sh0.50 per share on Tuesday from last year’s Sh0.20, with the bank now set to hand shareholders Sh2.72 billion in mid-October.

‘These banks are all well above the minimum regulatory capital requirements, allowing them to pay higher dividends that support their share prices from a valuation point of view,’ added Mr Manambo.

In the manufacturing segment, EABL and BAT will be making payments of Sh6.88 billion and Sh1 billion on October 31 and September 25, respectively.

Earlier this month, EABL announced a final dividend of Sh8.70 per share after reporting a record net profit of Sh18 billion for the year ended June 2026. BAT is making an interim payout of Sh10 per share for the half year to June.

Liberty (Sh267.9 million), Crown Paints (Sh427.1 million), Kapchorua (Sh469.4 million), Car and General (Sh80.2 million) and Williamson (Sh525.4 million) will pay their dividends between August 30 and September 30. Laptrust Imara I-Reit will distribute Sh45 million on September 30.

However, even as shareholders of these companies enjoy higher returns from their investments, the increased ownership of the top firms by foreign investors means that 45 percent of the cash, or Sh33 billion, will be shipped out of the country and the local economy.

These multinational subsidiaries have in recent years consistently paid dividends, making them attractive to foreigners eyeing higher returns from the local market.

In June, South African company Vodacom Group tightened its grip on Safaricom by purchasing an additional 15 percent stake from the Kenya government for Sh204 billion, taking its controlling stake to 55 percent.

South Africa’s Nedbank is buying a 66 percent stake in NCBA for about Sh110 billion in a deal that is expected to close by the end of the year. Absa Group has bid for an additional 16.5 percent stake in its Kenyan unit for Sh30.9 billion, which, if fully subscribed, will raise its controlling stake to 85 percent.

This has, however, raised concerns about rising repatriation of corporate profits from the economy as foreigners deepen their hold on large firms.

Speaking on Monday, Kiharu MP Ndindi Nyoro said the acquisition of larger stakes in the banks and Safaricom by foreign entities risks locking out Kenyan investors from the financial benefits of one of the economy’s fastest-growing sectors.

‘Kenyan banks, whether big or small, are making money. We must therefore guard against the takeover of Kenyan banks by international institutions, so that we do not hand the benefit to others,’ said Mr Nyoro, a former chairman of the National Assembly Budget and Appropriations Committee.

By virtue of its larger stake in Safaricom, Vodacom will now bank Sh25.3 billion in dividends from the telco, up from Sh10.4 billion from last year’s payout.

Although they are a positive for the companies, the higher multinational dividend outflows can also strain the domestic foreign exchange market as the firms buy a larger volume of dollars to repatriate to their parents.

It also draws out of the country capital that would have otherwise been invested locally had it been paid out to resident investors.

The companies with large foreign ownership are also some of the biggest dollar buyers during their dividend season for onward payment to their external shareholders.

It seems like professionals across East Africa cannot make it through a single day without discussions mentioning artificial intelligence. AI has become nearly as ubiquitous in the workplace as the internet, email, M-Pesa, Word, or Excel.

Certainly, there exist exciting potential uses for AI including scientific breakthroughs in medical research curing diseases or protecting ecological diversity to name a few. But more realistically, we face severe global distortions to economic and social stability as AI generates more and more revenue for billionaires while regular people get further and further left behind.

Additionally, most of us in the academic world lament something deeper in the collective dramatic decline in motivation, self-efficacy, and rigorous thought commensurate with AI usage. We are in danger of a generation that will be unable to think critically, analyse, or innovate on their own.

So, it begs the question. What is the value of AI in workplace or academic competition when everyone is utilising it? After everyone adopts the same tools, who still thinks differently?

At the macro and firm-level, recent research from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) gives business leaders plenty of reason to rush toward AI. Of course, one must look skeptically at any consultant published research since it is often used to scare clients into hiring their firm.

But, in a global survey of 1,250 senior executives and AI decision makers, BCG placed only five percent of companies in its most advanced category. Another 35 percent had started scaling AI. The remaining 60 percent reported minimal gains in revenue and costs despite substantial investment.

The companies at the front reported impressive results because of AI investments. BCG found that its most advanced companies achieved five times the AI related revenue increases and three times the ‘cost reductions’ of other companies.

Now with AI cost reductions, even though explicit explanations to changes in the nature of work are not super clear, one obviously assumes that massive job losses account for most of the cost savings. But compared with laggards in the study, the top firms also recorded 1.7 times the revenue growth, 3.6 times the three-year shareholder return and 1.6 times the EBIT margin.

BCG seems to want business leaders to easily draw one main conclusion from these numbers in that they should move faster.

Yet a new article published by Ryan Trimberger, Haresh Vaishnav, and Eric Yuen in the Harvard Business Review raises an awkward problem with the above BCG advice. While their article was sponsored by AWS and 4MINDS, it asks what happens when every company gains access to AI.

The authors point out that a competitor can now reproduce an AI capability that another company spent 18 months and billions of shillings developing. Companies increasingly draw on the same foundation models of AI, cloud platforms, and pretrained systems.

Therefore, the resulting problem becomes an agentic convergence trap as organisations adopt similar technologies, they can end up developing similar capabilities.

So, let us assume that a Kenyan bank adopts a certain new AI model early. It uses AI to analyse customers, improve credit decisions, answer customer queries, identify fraud, prepare marketing campaigns and help managers make decisions. For a short while, the bank gains an advantage.

But then every other bank starts to do the same.

They may buy services from different vendors, but many of the underlying models draw upon enormous overlapping bodies of human knowledge that large language model Ais comb the internet to find.

Then managers begin asking AI similar questions in each and every bank. Marketing departments ask for campaign ideas while human resource teams ask it how to improve retention all while strategy teams ask which markets to enter as senior executives upload reports and ask for recommendations.

While each AI answer may differ slightly, the thinking can start converging toward a middle similar consensus.

Companies have traditionally gained advantage partly because human beings do not think alike. You can have real creativity, innovation, and directions. Two executives can study the same market and reach completely opposite and yet fascinating conclusions.

Similarly, one entrepreneur sees an opportunity that everyone else dismisses. A product manager pursues an idea that looks foolish according to historical data. A marketing director understands a peculiar customer behaviour that no spreadsheet captures. An employee challenges a practice that everyone else accepted for twenty years.

While some of those differences sometimes can produce terrible decisions, they also produce originality and unique value addition that can send a company into the stratosphere.

Artificial intelligence works by learning patterns from enormous quantities of existing material. Companies rightly value that capability because patterns help with forecasting, analysis, writing and decision support. But when millions of people increasingly turn to overlapping systems for advice, another possibility deserves attention.

AI may improve the average quality of thinking while reducing the distance between one organisation and another. So, do not be so quick in your firms to terminate every single analyst, strategist, and innovator just to replace them with generic AI. Competitive advantage requires some form of difference.

A company wins because it does something competitors cannot do, notices something competitors miss, understands customers differently, moves earlier or makes a judgement others reject.