Kenyan operators seek gambling licensing fee overhaul
The Association of Gaming Operators Kenya (AGOK) has asked senators to annul provisions of the country’s Gambling Control Regulations, 2026, objecting to licensing fees, capital requirements and the process used to introduce them. Vice Chairperson Paul Mutegi presented the association’s concerns to the Senate Committee on Delegated Legislation on November 3.
AGOK argued that the regulations failed to meet procedural requirements under the Statutory Instruments Act. It also maintained that certain provisions conflicted with existing legislation and that the financial requirements went beyond recovering regulatory costs, creating barriers to market entry. These remain the association’s allegations, rather than findings by the committee.
Mutegi said AGOK had written to the Office of the Prime Cabinet Secretary on July 15 and August 6. Its concerns were subsequently forwarded to the Gambling Regulatory Authority, with a round-table discussion proposed. “However, no engagements have taken place to date, despite AGOK’s requests,” he told senators.
Jockey Club of Kenya CEO Ben Lawrence separately questioned the adequacy of public participation, saying stakeholder submissions had not been sufficiently considered. The committee agreed to consult additional stakeholders before preparing its report. AGOK requested changes that would protect licensed businesses from a regulatory vacuum.
Licensing costs face parliamentary and court scrutiny
The published licensing regulations set an application fee of KES5 million and a license fee of KES50 million for an online bookmaker. The same amounts apply to an online casino. The schedule separately lists an annual operating license fee of KES5 million for each category, distinguishing recurring operating charges from the application and license fees.
The regulations also prescribe minimum gambling capital of KES100 million for online bookmakers and online casinos. Those capital requirements sit in the Third Schedule, while licensing charges appear in the Second Schedule. Consequently, the disputed framework covers both payments associated with obtaining and maintaining a license and the capital an applicant must demonstrate.
The parliamentary hearing follows litigation over the framework. The High Court initially stayed the licensing regulations on July 20, before narrowing that order on August 7 to the increased fees and capital requirements. In a further ruling dated August 21, Justice William Musyoka allowed licensing implementation to proceed, explaining that the fee provisions could not be separated from processing applications. The regulator had told the court that 246 applications were pending.
The August ruling addressed interim arrangements while the substantive dispute continued; it did not finally determine whether the contested regulations were lawful. The court recorded the regulator’s undertaking to refund money subsequently found to have been unlawfully, excessively or improperly collected. That distinction matters for the Senate review: permission to process licenses and receive fees did not resolve the underlying objections to the framework.
