The statements by Havi and Ahmednassir have pulled back the curtain on what appears to be a deliberate and damaging delay in the approval of a major merger by the Competition Authority of Kenya.
The merger in question is the proposed acquisition of Diageo’s controlling stake in East African Breweries PLC (EABL) by Japanese brewing giant Asahi Group Holdings, a transaction valued at approximately KSh 340 billion (US$2.3 billion) and representing one of the largest foreign direct investments in Kenya’s history.
The deal involves Asahi acquiring Diageo’s entire 65% stake in EABL, effectively transferring control of the region’s most iconic beverage company, which owns brands like Tusker and Kenya Cane, to a new international owner.
Havi and Ahmednassir’s argument is straightforward but grave: the CAK is not treating the court order as a genuine legal obstacle that must be respected, but rather as a convenient shield to hide behind while it extracts what it can from the parties involved.
The claim of extortion is serious!
Uganda and Tanzania, two neighboring countries with their own regulatory frameworks, have already given their unconditional approval to the merger filings.
That alone should raise eyebrows. If the CAK is supposed to be the primary regulator in this region, why is it the last one to act, and why is it moving so slowly while others have moved with efficiency and clarity?
The delay is not just an administrative inconvenience. It is costing the Kenyan state real money.
Every day that the merger remains unapproved is a day that the government loses out on much-needed revenues that would come from the completion of the sale.
The final part of the sale completion is being held hostage, not by complex legal issues, but by what appears to be a calculated strategy to prolong the process for reasons that have little to do with competition law and everything to do with leverage.
The transaction is expected to generate approximately Sh42 billion in capital gains tax for the National Treasury, making it one of the Kenya Revenue Authority’s biggest single transaction tax windfalls.
Yet, the CAK has the legal tools and the institutional capacity to make a decision. The Competition Act of 2010 gives it broad powers, and recent reforms have only strengthened its hand. So why the hesitation?
Why the silence while other regulators have spoken clearly?
The answer may lie in the Authority’s recent financial performance. In the year ending June 2025, the CAK saw its fines triple to over 116 million shillings, making penalties its single largest source of revenue.
Much of that money came from firms that either settled out of court or lost cases at the Competition Tribunal, including those penalized for completing mergers without prior approval.
That creates an uncomfortable incentive structure. When an institution becomes heavily reliant on fines for its budget, the temptation to stretch out approvals, to create uncertainty, and to push companies into settlement negotiations becomes very real.
The court order that the CAK is now clinging to may not be a barrier at all. It may be a tool, a way to keep the parties waiting until they are willing to pay a price that goes beyond the normal filing fees and review costs.
The legal challenges themselves reveal a troubling pattern. Four separate cases have been filed to block the transaction, with courts in Nairobi repeatedly dismissing them. Bia Tosha Distributors, a former EABL distributor citing a decade-old dispute, had its application dismissed in April 2026.
JILK Construction, which holds a pending arbitral award of approximately KSh 2.45 billion against EABL-related entities, saw its application dismissed on June 18, 2026.
A third challenge by Shane Ngechu Irungu and 337 Frontier Capital was declined by Justice Ado Otieno on June 22, 2026.
However, on the same day the Nairobi court dismissed JILK’s application, a fresh petition was filed at the High Court in Machakos by Christine Irungu. Justice Josephine Mongare issued ex parte conservatory orders that same day, restraining all parties from completing the transaction.
EABL has since written to Chief Justice Martha Koome, warning that this pattern of forum shopping across multiple court stations risks derailing one of the largest foreign direct investments in Kenya’s history.
This is not how regulation is supposed to work. The CAK was established to protect competition and consumers, not to act as a gatekeeper that extracts value from businesses before allowing them to operate.
The fact that Uganda and Tanzania have moved ahead without hesitation should serve as a wake-up call. If Kenya wants to position itself as the economic hub of East Africa, it cannot afford to have its primary regulator acting as a bottleneck, especially when the motive for the delay appears to be financial self-interest rather than public interest.
The state is losing revenue, businesses are losing time, and the reputation of the country’s regulatory environment is being eroded.
It is time for the CAK to stop hiding behind court orders and make a decision, one that serves the economy and the people, not its own balance sheet.
Add Comment