Governor Sakaja is on the spotlight over a new county charge that could make it harder for liquor traders to reach customers through online delivery services.
The Ksh 100,000 fee imposed on each delivery platform per business location has raised questions about the county government’s approach to taxation and its treatment of small businesses.
The new requirement affects liquor sellers who use platforms such as Glovo, Uber Eats, Bolt Food and Jumia to deliver orders to customers.
Traders must pay the additional amount for every platform they use at each location, despite already holding liquor licences issued by the county government.
For businesses operating on tight budgets, the cost could significantly increase their operating expenses.
A trader using three delivery platforms at one outlet would face an additional Ksh 300,000 in fees, excluding the ordinary licensing charges and other taxes required to keep the business running.
The decision has drawn criticism from traders who argue that the county is placing an unreasonable financial burden on businesses at a time when the cost of running enterprises remains high.
Many have turned to online delivery to attract customers who prefer ordering from home rather than visiting physical outlets.
The extra charge threatens to make that option less affordable, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses that cannot easily absorb additional costs.
Some traders could be forced to abandon delivery platforms altogether, potentially losing customers to competitors who can afford the fees.
The dispute has also raised questions about the basis for charging businesses separately for selling through digital platforms.
Traders want the county government to explain why an online order should attract an additional levy when the seller already holds a valid liquor licence and pays the required charges.
The controversy comes amid wider changes to liquor licensing under Sakaja’s administration.
The county has introduced the digital LiquorPay system as part of efforts to improve licence applications, strengthen revenue collection and address loopholes in the previous system.
City officials have also pursued major liquor manufacturers over outstanding licensing payments, maintaining that businesses must comply with county regulations.
However, the latest fee has shifted attention to the financial pressure facing smaller operators who depend on daily sales to sustain their businesses.
Enforcement has further intensified the dispute. County inspectorate officers have reportedly conducted operations against outlets that have not complied with the new requirement, seizing goods and arresting workers.
The reported Kanjo raids have intensified criticism of Sakaja’s administration, with traders questioning why county officers are confiscating goods and arresting workers over the disputed online liquor tax.
Business owners argue that paying their existing licences should not be followed by additional charges that threaten their operations, and are demanding an explanation of the legal basis for the new levy.
The central issue is whether the new requirement represents a fair licensing measure or an additional financial burden on businesses already paying for the right to sell liquor.
Traders are seeking clarity on the legal basis of the fee and why it should apply separately to each delivery platform.
For Sakaja’s administration, the challenge is to demonstrate that its revenue policies can protect county interests without discouraging legitimate business activity.
Add Comment