The Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) has come under pressure to start imposing tougher penalties on firms abusing market power.
A review by a panel from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that while Kenya has a structured fining regime backed by administrative guidelines, enforcement has leaned heavily on negotiated settlements.
This, the Paris-based OECD says, often results in low penalties and no admission of wrongdoing on the side of rogue companies, a pattern that risks weakening deterrence of anti-competitive practices in Kenya.
The OECD wants the competition regulator to overhaul its fining framework so that sanctions reflect the scale of offending firms and the seriousness of violations — a shift seen as critical to restoring credibility in enforcement.
“[CAK should] ensure that fines serve as a deterrent by being proportionate to both the gravity of the infringement and the turnover of the fined undertakings,” the OECD writes in the Peer Reviews of Kenya’s Competition Law and Policy.
The OECD notes that enforcement against anti-competitive practices has been “low in the last five years,” raising broader concerns about the watchdog’s effectiveness despite its wide-ranging mandate.
A look at the CAK’s enforcement actions in recent years raises questions over deterrence. The biggest fine by the competition watchdog is the Sh1.1 billion handed down to Carrefour in December 2023 for abuse of buyer power by demanding “unjustified” discounts and listing fees from suppliers.
Notable penalties include those against nine steel manufacturers (Sh338.8 million in August 2023 for collusion to fix prices), Directline Assurance (Sh85 million in December 2025 for delaying car repair claims from garages), and Guaranty Trust Bank Kenya (Sh33.18 million in February 2026 for “unconscionable conduct” and corporate bullying against its client).
Others are Basco Products (Sh20.8 million in 2020 for collusion to fix prices) and Mogo Auto Ltd (Sh10.85 million for disbursing loans in shillings but calculating and demanding that installments be paid in in US dollars).
Relatively smaller fines have also hit Capwell Industries (Sh600,000 in June 2021 for misrepresenting the quality and ingredients to consumers), PZ Cussons East Africa (Sh595,000 for failing to label manufacturing and expiry dates), Del Monte Kenya (Sh776,025 in January 2020 for misrepresenting quality and standards of its products) and Moringa School (Sh500,000 in September 2019 for implementing a merger without getting regulatory approvals).
The enforcement has also been blunted by weak recovery of penalties.
The CAK said last year that only Sh177.5 million, or about 12.4 percent, of more than Sh1.4 billion imposed between 2021 and mid-2025 was collected, as firms contest most of the decisions in court.
The enforcement gap is further compounded by limited transparency, with the regulator typically publishing only summaries of its decisions rather than full rulings, thereby restricting public insight into how competition law is interpreted and applied.
The OECD reckons that publishing detailed decisions would improve accountability and help build a stronger competition culture among businesses and legal practitioners.
CAK director-general David Kemei said the review “challenges us to enhance our penalties” while keeping them “proportionate and dissuasive,” and to improve transparency by publishing more detailed decisions to build jurisprudence and stakeholder confidence.
“The Authority is dedicated to implementing these recommendations, obviously taking into account various realities,” Mr Kemei said.
The report adds that the CAK appears to be underutilising investigative tools such as whistleblower programmes.
The whistleblower framework -- widely used globally to uncover cartels in market-- have yet to deliver results in Kenya, pointing to low awareness and concerns among potential applicants about the risks of coming forward.
Capacity constraints are also limiting the effectiveness of the competition watchdog. The OECD review established that the CAK operates with relatively low funding and staffing compared to peer jurisdictions, recommending increased resources and ring-fenced funding to support its core enforcement mandate.
