Court Challenge Puts Betika’s Licensing Decisions and Operations on the Spot
Betika is facing a fresh legal challenge over two gambling licences issued to Shop and Deliver Limited, with a High Court application demanding answers about when the licences were signed, how they were implemented and whether the company’s licensing arrangements complied with court orders issued on October 6, 2026.
The challenge, filed by Benedict Kabugi Ndungu in Judicial Review Application No. E350 of 2026 at the Milimani High Court, seeks to stop the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya (GRAK) from giving effect to disputed gambling licences while complaints against betting operators remain unresolved.
At the centre of the application is Shop and Deliver Limited, which operates under the Betika brand.
The documents identify two licences issued to the company and raise questions about the timing of their approval, the information presented to the court and the regulator’s handling of complaints dating back to May 2026.
The applicant wants the court to establish whether Betika’s licences were issued or put into operation in circumstances that conflicted with the restrictions imposed on the regulator.
He is also seeking an order requiring the authority to disclose the full details of the licences and account for the steps it took after the court intervened.
The case places Betika’s licensing position at the centre of a dispute that goes beyond routine paperwork. The applicant argues that the court cannot effectively determine whether its orders were respected without examining the actual licences, their execution dates and whether they were used to facilitate gambling operations and payment collection.
The application is particularly significant because it identifies two separate licences issued to the same company within days of each other, while complaints concerning the operators were still awaiting determination.
Two Betika Licences Identified in the Disputed Licensing Process
The application specifically identifies two licences issued to Shop and Deliver Limited, trading as Betika.One is Licence No. GRAK/2026/PG592241, described in the application as a public gambling licence signed on October 2, 2026.
The second is Licence No. GRAK/2026/BK337947, which the applicant identifies as another licence issued to Shop and Deliver Limited on October 6, 2026.
The dates are central to the dispute. The applicant argues that the court must establish precisely when the licences were approved, signed, issued and activated, particularly in relation to the interim orders made on October 6.
The application identifies October 2 as the date on which the first Betika licence was signed, four days before the court issued the orders now at the centre of the dispute.
It also identifies a second licence dated October 6, the very day the court intervened.
The applicant wants the court to clarify that its restrictions cover both licences, including any licence approved or signed before the orders but subsequently implemented.
This is a direct challenge to the licensing process involving Betika. The company’s position cannot be assessed simply by looking at whether a licence exists. The applicant wants the court to examine the sequence of decisions and determine whether the licences were given effect while the regulator was restrained from taking the relevant steps.
The application also identifies a bookmaker licence, GRAK/2026/BK955335, issued to Kareco Holdings Limited, trading as Odibets, and a public gambling licence, GRAK/2026/PG608718, issued to the same company.
However, Betika remains a central focus because two of the four licences specifically identified in the application belong to Shop and Deliver Limited.
The applicant is seeking a clear ruling on whether the October 6 orders cover these instruments and whether the regulator should be prevented from implementing them until the complaints have been determined.
October 6 Court Orders Put Betika’s Licence Implementation Under Scrutiny
The applicant’s case rests heavily on the interim orders issued by the High Court on October 6, 2026.According to the application, the orders were intended to prevent the Gambling Regulatory Authority from approving, issuing, activating or implementing fresh gambling licences before it determined the complaints filed against the affected operators.
The applicant argues that the restrictions also covered licences that had already been issued but had not yet been fully implemented.
This interpretation is important because the Betika licence identified as GRAK/2026/PG592241 was signed on October 2, before the court issued its orders.
The application maintains that the restrictions were designed to prevent the regulator from relying on the timing of a licence to defeat the purpose of the court’s intervention.
Under the interpretation advanced by the applicant, the regulator could not simply argue that a licence had been signed before October 6 and therefore fell outside the restrictions.
The court is being asked to clarify whether the orders also prohibited the authority from implementing such a licence while the complaints remained unresolved.
The applicant further argues that the second Betika licence, identified as GRAK/2026/BK337947, must also be covered by the orders.
The court is therefore being asked to examine whether the regulator’s actions were consistent with the restrictions and whether any of the disputed licences were activated or used after the orders came into force.
The application describes the restrictions as carrying penal notices and seeks their extension pending the determination of the complaints or further orders from the court.
The issue is not merely whether Betika held licensing documents. It is whether the relevant licensing decisions and subsequent actions complied with the court’s directions.
Applicant Questions Why Licence Details were not Disclosed to the Court
One of the strongest issues raised in the application is the alleged failure to disclose material information about the licences during earlier court proceedings.
The applicant states that the Gambling Regulatory Authority signed three licences on October 2, including the Betika public gambling licence.
However, he argues that the licences were not produced when the matter came before the court on October 5 and October 6.
The filing refers to a statement sworn by the authority’s Director-General on October 5.
According to the applicant, the Director-General maintained that the complaints were still under assessment and referred to an order issued on July 31, 2026, in Murang’a High Court Constitutional Petition No. E009 of 2026.
The applicant argues that the licensing instruments signed on October 2 were not exhibited in that material, despite their relevance to the question of whether the regulator was proceeding with licensing while complaints remained pending.
The application also refers to affidavits filed by Shop and Deliver Limited on October 5.
The applicant states that Paul Mutegi referred to a licence having been issued without providing its number or date.
The applicant argues that the omission prevented the court from having a complete picture of the licensing position when considering the dispute.
He characterises the failure to disclose the relevant details as deliberate material non-disclosure and asks the court to examine whether important information was withheld while the interim orders were being considered.
These are serious claims. They could affect the court’s assessment of how the licensing dispute was presented and whether the regulator and the affected company provided the information needed for a proper determination.
The application cites Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Cooper Motor Corporation Ltd [2016] eKLR in support of the argument that parties must disclose material facts when seeking relief from the court.
The applicant wants the court to examine the licensing records and determine whether the omissions were material, why the details were not disclosed and what consequences should follow.Betika filed a notice of appeal but applicant wants restrictions maintained.
The Application also Addresses Betika’s Response to the October 6 Orders.
According to the certificate of urgency, Shop and Deliver Limited wrote to the Deputy Registrar on October 6 seeking certified copies of the order and typed proceedings for purposes of lodging an appeal.
The company also filed a notice of appeal against the orders on the same date.
The applicant argues that filing a notice of appeal did not, by itself, suspend the High Court’s orders.He therefore wants the restrictions maintained while the court considers the disputed licences, the outstanding complaints and the regulator’s compliance with its directions.
This argument is central to the applicant’s request for an extension of the interim orders. He maintains that the licensing dispute cannot be left unresolved simply because Betika has indicated its intention to challenge the orders.
The court is being asked to establish the status of the licences and determine whether the regulator should continue to be restrained from implementing them pending further directions.
The application does not establish the outcome of any appeal or show that the October 6 orders were set aside. It asks the High Court to maintain its intervention and clarify the restrictions while the dispute remains before it.
For Betika, the legal challenge therefore continues to centre on the effect of the court orders, the dates of the two licences and whether the disputed instruments should be allowed to operate while the complaints remain unresolved.
Complaints Dating back to May Remain at the Heart of the Dispute
The applicant says the licensing decisions must be examined against complaints dated May 19, July 3 and August 31, 2026.
The filings argue that the Gambling Regulatory Authority should formally determine those complaints before allowing the disputed licences to be implemented.
The applicant questions why licensing decisions were made while the complaints were still being assessed.
He argues that the regulator must explain the status of the complaints and identify the legal and administrative basis on which the licences were approved and issued.
The application invokes Section 30 of the Gambling Control Act, 2025, as well as Article 47 of the Constitution, which protects the right to fair administrative action.
It also relies on Sections 4, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, alongside other constitutional and procedural provisions.
The applicant’s argument is that regulatory action must comply with the law and that complaints cannot remain unresolved while disputed licensing decisions continue to take effect without proper determination.
Betika’s two licences are directly affected by that argument because the applicant wants their status considered alongside the outstanding complaints.
The court is being asked to establish whether the authority’s actions complied with its legal duties and whether the licences should remain restricted until the complaints are formally resolved.
The application does not contain a final ruling on the merits of the complaints. It seeks judicial intervention to ensure that the regulatory process is completed and that the disputed licensing decisions are addressed in accordance with the law.
Application Demands Answers on whether Betika Licences were Operationalised
The applicant also wants the Gambling Regulatory Authority to account for whether the disputed licences were put into practical use after October 6.
The certificate of urgency claims that licences were operationalised and deployed to facilitate gambling operations and payment collection despite the court’s intervention.
The applicant wants the regulator to disclose whether any of the licences issued to Betika and the other identified operators were activated, deployed or used to facilitate commercial gambling or payment collection after the interim orders were made.
The requested report would have to identify each licence, provide its precise approval and execution dates and explain what administrative steps were taken to ensure compliance with the court’s directions.
This demand places the actual implementation of Betika’s licences under examination, rather than limiting the dispute to their formal issuance.
The applicant argues that the court needs a full account of what happened after October 6 to determine whether the restrictions achieved their intended purpose.
The application also identifies a further licence issued to Solami Limited, trading as Kwikbet, and seeks disclosure of its details and date of issue.
The requested report would cover Betika, Odibets and Kwikbet. However, the two licences identified for Betika make the company a key subject of the licensing questions the applicant wants answered.
The allegation that the licences were operationalised in breach of the orders remains a claim in the application.
The court has been asked to examine the records and determine whether the relevant conduct was consistent with its directions.
KSh50 Betika Payment Appears in Supporting Documents
The annexures include a Safaricom payment confirmation showing a KSh50 payment to Betika on October 11, 2026, at 9:28 pm.
The receipt identifies Betika as the payee and lists paybill number 290290. It also records transaction reference UJBNN9KSGO.
Two other payment confirmations in the annexures show KSh50 payments to Odibets and Kwikbet later that evening.
The receipts share the same displayed phone number and account number.
The Betika receipt is part of the supporting material filed in the wider licensing dispute. Its presence is relevant to the applicant’s request for the court to examine whether betting operations and payment collection continued after the October 6 orders.
The applicant wants the regulator to provide a detailed account of whether the licences were operationalised and whether they were used to facilitate gambling operations or payment collection after the orders were issued.
That request places the focus on the licensing records and the regulator’s explanation of what happened during the period covered by the application.
Applicant Raises wider Concerns about Regulatory Oversight and Subscriber Data
The application also raises concerns about personal data and the commercial exploitation of subscriber information.
The applicant describes the wider dispute as involving alleged systemic personal data breaches and the commercial exploitation of stolen subscriber data affecting millions of Kenyans.
The filing refers to Constitutional Petition No. E095 of 2026, identified as Austine Taabu Musungu & Others v Safaricom PLC.
These issues form part of the wider background presented by the applicant, who argues that the regulator’s actions and the continued operation of disputed licences should be examined in light of the legal protections being sought.
The immediate licensing dispute focuses on the regulator’s handling of complaints, the issuance and implementation of the licences and compliance with the October 6 orders.
The applicant wants the court to ensure that these questions are addressed before the disputed licensing arrangements are allowed to continue under the circumstances challenged in the proceedings.
Seven-day deadline sought for regulator to explain its actions
The applicant wants the High Court to order the Gambling Regulatory Authority to file and serve a sworn compliance report within seven days, or within another period determined by the court.
The proposed report would have to disclose the exact licences approved, signed, issued or activated for Betika, Odibets and Kwikbet, together with the dates of the relevant decisions.
It would also have to explain whether the licences were operationalised or used to facilitate gambling operations and payment collection after October 6.
The applicant further wants the regulator to detail the administrative measures taken to ensure that the court’s restrictions were observed.
The requested orders include an extension of Orders Nos. 2 and 3 until the complaints dated May 19, July 3 and August 31 have been determined, or until the court issues further directions.
He also seeks clarification that the restrictions cover the four licences identified in the application, including both licences issued to Betika.
The court is being asked to direct the regulator to comply fully with the orders and to grant any further relief necessary to protect the administration of justice.
These are the orders sought by the applicant, not a confirmation that the court has already granted the seven-day deadline or extended the restrictions.
Betika licensing dispute now turns on dates, disclosure and compliance
The application leaves the High Court with specific questions to determine about Betika’s licensing position.
The first concerns the two licences identified in the filings, including one signed on October 2 and another identified as issued on October 6.The second concerns the applicant’s claim that the relevant licensing instruments were not fully disclosed during earlier proceedings.
The third is whether the licences were activated or put into use after the court issued its interim orders, and whether the regulator took the steps required to comply with those orders.
The applicant wants the authority to produce the records needed to answer those questions and formally determine the outstanding complaints.
The case also raises a wider question about the effectiveness of regulatory oversight when licensing decisions are challenged in court.
The applicant argues that the regulator must account for its decisions and that the court’s intervention should not be undermined by the implementation of disputed licences.
For Betika, the application puts the company’s two identified licences under direct judicial examination and challenges the circumstances surrounding their approval and use.
The court has been asked to clarify the scope of its October 6 orders, maintain the restrictions and require a sworn report on the licensing decisions and subsequent actions.
The outcome will determine the legal position of the disputed licences and what further action, if any, the regulator and the parties must take.
Add Comment