Safaricom secures place in legal battle over Kenya's spectrum pricing rules

Safaricom has won a High Court bid to join a dispute challenging the Communications Authority of Kenya’s revised spectrum fees, allowing the telecommunications operator to participate in a case that could affect regulatory costs and competition in the sector.

Justice John Anuro allowed Safaricom to enter proceedings in which Jamii Telecommunications Limited is challenging the regulator’s 2025 fee schedule. The revised charges have been suspended since April 24, 2025, when the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal halted their implementation pending determination of Jamii’s application.

The dispute concerns how the regulator charges telecommunications operators for access to radio frequencies used to carry mobile calls and internet data. The revised schedule introduced band-based charges calculated according to the amount of spectrum assigned to an operator, replacing a system based on the number of transmitters in its network.

The Communications Authority says the changes account for inflation, technological developments, efficient spectrum use and the need to support investment and connectivity. Jamii has challenged the framework, arguing that its pricing structure favours larger operators and weakens competition.

Why Safaricom sought to join the spectrum fee dispute

Safaricom sought to participate because the outcome could affect its regulatory obligations, financial outlay, business planning and competitive position. The company also offered to provide technical and economic context on spectrum pricing and its effects on competition and service delivery.

The tribunal initially rejected Safaricom’s application, finding that the company had not adequately explained the prejudice it would suffer if excluded from the case. It also questioned whether Safaricom had clarified its position on Jamii’s appeal, including whether it supported or opposed the challenge.

Safaricom appealed that decision to the High Court. The Communications Authority opposed its entry, arguing that the company had not attached material setting out its intended case and had not sufficiently clarified its position. The regulator warned that admitting Safaricom could prejudice its response to Jamii’s appeal and amount to litigation by ambush.

Jamii did not oppose Safaricom’s appeal. The tribunal proceedings were suspended on September 19, 2025, following the appeal.

Justice Anuro found that the tribunal had applied the legal test for admitting an interested party too rigidly. He said the tribunal had acknowledged that Safaricom could be affected by the dispute but then concluded that the company had failed to demonstrate prejudice.

The judge pointed to Safaricom’s affidavit, which stated that the appeal could affect its regulatory obligations, financial outlay, business planning and competitive position.

“That is a statement of prejudice. It may not have been elaborate, but it is certainly not absent,” the court said.

The judge also rejected the argument that Safaricom had to declare whether it supported or opposed Jamii’s appeal before joining the proceedings. An interested party can support certain arguments, oppose others or concentrate on explaining how the outcome affects its own position, he said.

Justice Anuro further found that the tribunal had given too much weight to Safaricom’s offer of industry expertise. The company’s principal argument was that it was itself subject to the fee regime under challenge, while its technical knowledge was an additional reason for allowing it to participate.

Court limits Safaricom’s role in the case

Although Safaricom has secured permission to join the proceedings, the High Court has restricted the scope of its participation.

The company must confine its submissions to issues already raised by Jamii. It cannot introduce a new claim, ground of appeal or remedy, or take control of the case.

The tribunal is expected to set timelines for Safaricom to file its affidavit and submissions, after which the other parties will have an opportunity to respond.

The ruling clears the way for Safaricom to present its position on a regulatory framework that applies to its operations. The substantive challenge, however, remains centred on Jamii’s arguments against the revised fee schedule.

The tribunal will have to consider the underlying challenge to the regulator’s pricing framework, including Jamii’s objections to the structure of the charges and the process through which they were introduced.

The dispute over Kenya’s revised spectrum fees

The Communications Authority notified licence holders on March 10, 2025, that the revised annual fees would take effect on July 1 that year. Jamii subsequently challenged the schedule before the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal.

Jamii argued that the pricing system gave larger operators an advantage because of their greater resources and revenue share. In its submissions, the company described the structure as “discriminatory, uncompetitive, unfair, unsustainable, and unreasonable”.

The company also argued that the Authority had conducted only superficial public participation and perpetuated existing market inequalities. It asked the tribunal to overturn the revised schedule.

The Authority’s approach is based on a different set of considerations. It says the review accounts for inflation and technological changes while encouraging efficient use of spectrum and supporting investment and connectivity.

Spectrum is a finite resource that telecommunications operators need to provide wireless services. The way regulators price access to different frequency bands can influence the costs associated with operating networks and deploying infrastructure.

The revised framework changed the basis of calculation from the number of transmitters in an operator’s network to the amount of spectrum assigned to it. That change lies at the centre of the disagreement over how charges should be distributed across the market.

A draft market review published by the Communications Authority and ICT Authority identifies spectrum fees as a significant operating cost and notes that the pricing changes are being litigated. The review also warns that a new structure could increase fees for operators with smaller networks, while emphasising that pricing should not risk excluding smaller competitors.

What the case means for telecom competition

The dispute comes as Kenya’s telecommunications operators continue to invest in networks and compete across mobile and fixed internet services. The way spectrum charges are calculated matters because regulatory costs form part of the economics of operating telecommunications infrastructure.

Safaricom’s reported licence-fee expenditure illustrates the scale of its regulatory costs. The company paid KSh16.3 billion in the year ended March, up from KSh14.6 billion a year earlier.

That expenditure covers licence fees and should be distinguished from the specific spectrum charges being challenged by Jamii. Safaricom’s wider licensing position also changed following approval of a 25-year operating licence under Kenya’s Unified Licensing Framework, a development reported by TechTrendsKE in May 2026.

Jamii and Safaricom also operate in Kenya’s fixed broadband market, where providers compete to attract customers through different network technologies and service offerings. TechTrendsKE reported in September 2026 that the country’s fixed internet market had reached 2.84 million connections in the year to June, with fibre connections accounting for 1.57 million. The report identified Safaricom and Jamii among the market’s major providers.

The broader competition question is whether spectrum pricing can support efficient use of radio frequencies while allowing operators of different sizes to compete and invest in connectivity. Jamii’s challenge places that question before the tribunal, while Safaricom’s admission means the company can now explain how the disputed framework affects its own regulatory and commercial interests.

The High Court ruling resolves the immediate question of Safaricom’s participation. The tribunal’s proceedings will determine the next stage of Jamii’s challenge to the revised spectrum-fee schedule.

Go to TECHTRENDSKE.co.ke for more tech and business news from the African continent and across the world.

Follow us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and Facebook, or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to ensure you don’t miss out on any future updates. Send tips to editorial@techtrendsmedia.co.ke