Court to decide fate of Sh50m betting licence fee as firms challenge new gambling rules

The decision on whether Gambling companies will pay a Sh50 million licensing fee for online bookmakers and Sh120 million for casinos, or stick to the old requirement of Sh200,000 and Sh7 million respectively, now lies with High Court Judge William Musyoka.

This is after a court case was filed challenging new gambling control regulations.

 Two lawyers, Thomas Buckley Opal and Ken Brance, sued the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya (GRA), the Attorney General and  Prime Cabinet Secretary, arguing that the new regulations will cripple the industry and were allegedly passed without public participation.

Opal and Brance explained that the 2026 regulations were passed amidst confusion on who among the Cabinet Secretaries is responsible for gambling.

They accused Kenya Kwanza of deliberately leaving out the crucial role of managing the industry from the organogram. They stated that this left gambling firms without anyone to ask questions from. According to them, this role initially was assigned to the Public Service, Human Capital Development and Special Programs, Geoffrey Ruku.

 Nevertheless, they complained that the fees introduced in the new law range from 200 percent increase to a 49,900 percent increase.

According to the two, an online bookmaker application fee was initially Sh10,000. However, the new fee applied is Sh5 million. For pool and betting license renewal, the players were paying Sh5,000 but are now required to pay Sh2.5 million, the same as the bookmaker application fee, which was previously Sh10,000.

 They further claimed that for an online bookmaker license fee, the amount was increased 24,900 times, from Sh 200,000 to Sh 50 million.

Opar and Brance asserted that the government had allegedly ignored Parliament’s recommendation while increasing the fees.

At the same time, they lamented that the advertising fee had been increased by 6 percent.

“ The Act's Third Schedule requires Sh20 million security for casinos, but the Regulations' Third Schedule (titled "gambling capital requirement") requires Sh 100 million gambling capital for casinos. The respondents have deliberately and unlawfully imposed a financial requirement that is 500 per cent higher than that which Parliament deemed sufficient,” they continued.

The two lawyers argued that the authority was on the verge of ordering closures and deactivation of gambling channels.

 Justice Musyoka blocked the gambling authority from implementing the new regulations.

However, the authority’s Director General Peter Karimi moved back to court, arguing that the court had allegedly crippled its ability to process licenses.

Karimi alleged that the fees and the new rules were a result of consultations with the stakeholders.

 He stated that the requirements for gambling firms must have insurance coverage, and for gambling capital was out of caution that they must have the financial capacity necessary to establish and sustain such operations.

“The blanket stay has accordingly impaired the Authority’s ability to receive, process and determine applications under the new framework, conduct the prescribed due diligence and inspections, process applications by suppliers and service providers and regulate new market entry,” he replied.

In his further reply, Opar, who said he is a consultant advising licensed gaming operators, stated that the new regulations had simply knocked out the majority of betting firms as very few would sustain such fees and insurance premiums.

According to him, the implementation of the regulations would be unfair as there are no channels of refund if the betting firms comply.

 He said that GRA had already notified mobile service providers on July 3 that it would require the new regulations to be implemented before they issued them with the payment channels.

 “Unless Mobile money operators are bound by interim orders issued by this Honourable Court, there exists a real risk that payment channels utilised by licensed operators may be suspended or deactivated pursuant to directions issued under the impugned Regulations, thereby defeating the purpose of the stay sought in these proceedings,” he argued.

Karimi, on the other hand, insisted that the communication was in relation to new applicants and not those who are renewing their licenses.