The Competition Appeals Tribunal — the only body where parties can challenge decisions of the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) — has been virtually inactive since mid-2025.
The reason is straightforward: the term of its chairperson and key members expired months ago, and no replacements have been done. Dozens of critical cases remain in limbo, their resolution indefinitely deferred by what can only be described as deliberate government inaction.
These are not minor disputes. They involve some of Kenya's largest companies across critical sectors of the economy. Vivo Energy Kenya has a case pending before the Tribunal.
Guaranty Trust Bank has a dispute touching on competition and fees. Pwani Oil Products is pitted against Majid Hypermarkets. Rural and Urban Private Hospitals have a long-standing unresolved matter. So do Corrugated Sheets Limited and Brollo Kenya Limited, both locked in cases against the competition authority itself.
Behind every one of these cases are businesses, employees and consumers waiting for a resolution that the law promised them — and that the government has failed to deliver.
This is not mere bureaucratic slowness. It is negligence with tangible economic consequences.
When the Tribunal is non-functional, anti-competitive behaviour goes unchecked. Companies that abuse their market dominance face no meaningful legal challenge. Mergers that should be scrutinised proceed without adequate oversight. Cartels that drive up prices for ordinary Kenyans operate with reduced risk of accountability.
Businesses are left to operate under deep uncertainty, unable to plan or invest with confidence. And investors — both domestic and foreign — observe a market where regulatory oversight is weak or entirely absent. Each stalled case is a quiet but damaging signal to the world: that Kenya's enforcement of competition law is, at best, unreliable.
Section 71 of the Competition Act sets out the structure and quorum of the Tribunal. That provision has been ignored. The result is a competition regulator that is effectively toothless — unable to enforce the very law it exists to uphold.
When a government allows its own statutes to go unenforced not through lack of resources but through simple failure to make appointments, it reveals something important about its true priorities.
The vacancies at the Tribunal are not an isolated administrative failure. They expose a deeper, more troubling problem in Kenya's economic governance: competition regulation is treated as an afterthought.
In well-functioning markets, competition policy is a cornerstone of economic management. It protects consumers from exploitation, gives smaller businesses a fair chance to compete, and assures investors that market rules apply equally to everyone.
If competition regulation were taken seriously in Kenya, appointments to the Tribunal would be timely and cases would be resolved efficiently. Instead, prolonged inaction signals a government that tolerates weak enforcement — and, by extension, one that indirectly enables anti-competitive conduct to flourish.
Who bears the cost of this failure? Ordinary Kenyans. Consumers pay higher prices when markets are not competitive. Small and medium-sized businesses are squeezed out by larger players who face no regulatory consequence for predatory behaviour. Honest companies lose ground to those willing to exploit regulatory gaps. Investors hesitate.
The law itself is sound. The Competition Act of 2010 grants CAK robust investigatory powers, establishes the Appeals Tribunal and provides meaningful consumer protections.
It is a well-crafted piece of legislation that, on paper, gives Kenya the tools to maintain fair and competitive markets. But a law achieves nothing if the institutions meant to enforce it are paralysed. The framework is only as strong as the leadership behind it, and right now, that leadership is absent.
The problem does not end with the Tribunal. Kenya's competition regulation is confused and fragmented at a structural level. CAK is supposed to be the primary enforcer, yet other regulators — the Communications Authority, the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority — also wield competition powers within their respective sectors.
This duplication spreads resources thin, slows enforcement and creates space for regulatory arbitrage. Companies can exploit overlaps, playing one regulator against another, delaying accountability and muddying jurisdictional waters.
Kenya needs a rationalised regulatory architecture, with CAK as the clear, empowered lead authority on all competition matters, supported — not undermined — by sector regulators operating within defined boundaries.
But the most urgent task is simpler. The Treasury must act — immediately. Appoint a chairperson and members to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. It is what the law requires. It is what the economy demands.
Every day of further delay costs businesses, costs consumers, and costs Kenya its credibility as a serious investment destination. Competition regulation is not a bureaucratic checkbox. It is a cornerstone of a fair, functional, and prosperous economy. It is time the government treated it as such.
Follow ourWhatsApp channel for the latest business and markets updates.
Unlock a world of exclusive content today!Unlock a world of exclusive content today!
