Safaricom offices along Waiyaki Way, Nairobi./FILE
Safaricom PLC is reviewing the implications of a High Court judgement that ruled against the Government of Kenya’s divestiture of a 15 per cent stake in the telecommunications company.
In a public announcement by Safaricom Company Secretary Linda Mesa Wambani dated September 15, 2026, the firm said the transaction had already been completed on June 30, 2026, following the lifting of conservatory orders by the Court of Appeal and fulfilment of the relevant conditions precedent.
The company said it was reviewing the judgement and its implications, as the matter remained subject to legal processes.
Safaricom did not provide further details on the impact of the ruling but said further updates would be issued “in due course and as appropriate”.
The telecommunications company also reaffirmed its commitment to serving Kenya and Ethiopia, saying it would continue connecting people and businesses to opportunities, empowering communities and addressing societal challenges through technology.
Safaricom said its work remained focused on “transforming lives”.
The National Treasury CS John Mbadi has also said the government will appeal the High Court decision nullifying the stake sale.
Speaking to the media in Kisumu on Wednesday, Mbadi said the government would use the Court of Appeal to challenge findings that the divestiture violated constitutional and legal requirements, including public participation and procurement rules.
The three-judge High Court bench on Tuesday found that the divestiture process failed to meet constitutional and legal requirements, including meaningful public participation.
“The National Treasury will pursue this appeal vigorously and provide further updates as the matter progresses through the courts,” Mbadi said.
He said Treasury remained confident that the transaction had followed the law and had passed through Cabinet and parliamentary scrutiny.
“The divestiture was conceived, developed and presented to Cabinet and the National Assembly as a considered fiscal measure, structured to unlock value for the Exchequer while safeguarding the strategic character of an institution that touches the daily lives of over 50 million Kenyans,” he said.
The CS said the government disagreed with the court’s findings on public participation, arguing that extensive consultations had been undertaken before the transaction was approved.
“If there is any one transaction or one engagement that I feel confident that we did a lot of public participation on, it is this particular divestiture,” Mbadi said.
Mbadi declined to discuss the substance of the judgement in detail, saying the government had already initiated the process of challenging it.
“We have already filed the intention to appeal. So you wait for the appeal process,” he told journalists.
“What I am happy about is that we have processes that work. That is what Kenyans need to be proud of,” he said.
The court also faulted the government over what it described as the concealment or misrepresentation of material information concerning the transaction, including details about the proposed purchaser.
“Based on our analysis, findings and holdings in respect of the various issues identified for determination, we are satisfied that the petitioners have proved on a balance of probabilities that the divestiture in question was undertaken and procured in contravention of the Constitution and the law,” the court said.
“It was, therefore, invalid, null and void.”
The bench relied on Article 2 of the Constitution, which provides that any act or omission in contravention of the Constitution is invalid. It subsequently issued a series of orders quashing decisions and approvals connected to the divestiture.
The stake was sold to Vodacom for Sh204.3 billion, with the transaction completed in June 2026.
The court also found that the transaction effectively gave Vodacom majority control of Safaricom after the South African company acquired full ownership of Vodafone Kenya, through which it held shares in the listed telecommunications company.
The government had defended the transaction, which was approved by Parliament in March after public participation hearings and consideration of the deal's economic, fiscal, legal and national security implications.
The bench further found that the divestiture violated constitutional principles of intergenerational and intragenerational equity and sustainable development.
It also found that transactional advisory services involving KCB Investment Bank Limited had been procured in contravention of Article 227 of the Constitution and provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
The court consequently quashed the decision contained in Session Paper Number Three of 2025, which had been approved by the National Assembly in relation to the divestiture.
It also quashed any merger, acquisition or takeover of Safaricom Plc arising from the transaction, together with approvals, exemptions or no-objection decisions issued in relation to the divestiture.
The judges ordered the 15 per cent stake to be restored to the Government of Kenya on behalf of the people.
The judges noted that the shares could be restored despite arguments that reversing the transaction would be irreversible.
