A Nakuru Court has certified a matter urgent in which three telecommunications companies (Safaricom, Airtel, Telkom Kenya), the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) have been sued.
High court Judge M.Nang’ea has also directed the three telecommunications,Communication Authority of Kenya and State Law Office to file their responses by June 4,2025.
“The application and the petition be served forthwith,and the respondents will file and serve any replies by the stated mention date,”ruled Judge Nang’ea.
In the suit,Youth Advocacy Africa,Anthony Manyara and John Wangari have filed a petition at Nakuru High Court in which Safaricom PLC,Airtel Networks Kenya,Telcom Kenya,Communications Authority of Kenya and the Attorney General are the respondents in the case.
They are seeking a declaration that Safaricom actions in making unauthorized deductions,imposing undisclosed charges,and enrolling consumers into subscription- based services without prior and informed consent violate the rights of consumers under Article 46(1)(a),(b),and (c)of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
Antony Manyara, John Wangai, and Youth Advocacy Africa—have filed a constitutional petition in the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru against the three Telecommunications.
The case centers on alleged systemic violations of consumer rights under Article 46 of the Constitution and related laws, including unauthorized deductions, hidden charges, non-consensual subscriptions, and discriminatory service quality in rural areas.
The petitioners argue that the telecom operators (1st–3rd Respondents) breached consumer protections by failing to obtain informed consent for subscriptions, imposing undisclosed fees, and providing substandard services in underserved regions while charging urban-equivalent tariffs.
They further accuse the Communications Authority (4th Respondent) of neglecting its regulatory duties, enabling these violations.
The Attorney General (5th Respondent) is implicated for failing to uphold constitutional obligations.
The Petitioners seek declarations affirming violations of Articles 27 (equality), 43 (access to services), and 46 (consumer rights), alongside orders for refunds to affected consumers, prohibitions on non-consensual subscriptions, and mandates for transparent pricing and opt-in/out mechanisms. The petitioners also demand compensation for economic harm and systemic reforms.
