The petition, filed at the High Court in Nakuru, also names the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) and the Attorney General as respondents.
High Court certifies case as urgent
High Court Judge M. Nang’ea certified the matter as urgent.
The judge also directed Safaricom, Airtel, Telkom Kenya, the Communications Authority of Kenya and the 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.
Petitioners accuse telecom firms of violating consumer rights
Youth Advocacy Africa, Anthony Manyara and John Wangari filed the constitutional petition.
They seek a declaration that Safaricom’s alleged unauthorized deductions, undisclosed charges and enrolment of consumers into subscription-based services without informed consent violate Article 46(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
The petition also targets Airtel Networks Kenya and Telkom Kenya over similar allegations.
Petition raises constitutional issues
The petitioners argue that the three telecommunications companies have systematically violated consumer rights guaranteed under Article 46 of the Constitution.
According to the petition, the companies allegedly imposed hidden charges, enrolled customers into subscription services without informed consent and failed to provide adequate consumer protection.
The petition also alleges that the telecom operators provide inferior services in rural areas while charging tariffs comparable to those in urban centres.
The petitioners claim these practices violate Articles 27, 43 and 46 of the Constitution.
Communications Authority and Attorney General named
The petition further accuses the Communications Authority of Kenya of failing to discharge its regulatory mandate.
According to the petitioners, the regulator allowed the alleged consumer rights violations to continue.
The Attorney General has also been named for allegedly failing to uphold constitutional obligations.
Petitioners seek refunds and reforms
The petitioners want the court to declare that the respondents violated consumers’ constitutional rights.
They are also seeking refunds for affected consumers, orders prohibiting non-consensual subscription services and directives requiring transparent pricing.
Additionally, they want the court to compel the telecommunications companies to introduce clear opt-in and opt-out mechanisms.
The petition also seeks compensation for consumers who allegedly suffered economic loss and calls for broader reforms in the telecommunications sector.
