The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed an application by small-scale tea farmers challenging alleged discriminatory tea bonus payments for the 2024/2025 financial year, ruling that the matter had been overtaken by events.
In a ruling delivered at the Milimani Law Courts on January 27, Justice Roselyne Aburili found that the bonuses in dispute had already been processed and paid, rendering the case moot and unsuitable for judicial review.
The case was filed by Jeremiah Nyaribari Migosi and the Gusii Small Scale Tea Farmers, who alleged that tea farmers in Western Kenya were unfairly paid between Kshs 10–13 per kilogram, while their counterparts in Eastern Kenya received Kshs 55–57 per kilogram for the same 2024/2025 tea bonus period.
The applicants argued that the disparity amounting to a difference of about 470 percent—was discriminatory, irrational, and unlawful, given that tea from both regions is sold at the same auction under the same brand.
They claimed the decision violated constitutional protections against discrimination and the right to fair administrative action.
ALSO READ:
High Court halts auction of KUSCCO assets over Ksh108.8 million debt
They sought leave to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, including orders to quash the bonus payment formula, halt further payments based on the disputed formula, and compel the Tea Board of Kenya to establish a fair and non-discriminatory bonus system.
The Tea Board of Kenya, through its Chief Executive Officer, opposed the application, stating that it has no statutory mandate to determine or standardize tea bonuses. The Board maintained that its role under the Tea Act, 2020, is regulatory, not commercial, and that bonus payments are determined independently by factory boards based on market and operational factors.
Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) entities also opposed the application, arguing that they are private companies governed by the Companies Act and not subject to judicial review.
They asserted that the relationship between tea factories and KTDA is contractual and falls outside public law remedies.
The respondents further contended that the bonuses had already been paid out on October 10, 2025, and that any court orders issued thereafter would be ineffective.
ALSO READ:
Justice Aburili held that the central issue was whether a live controversy still existed. Citing established Kenyan jurisprudence on the doctrine of mootness, the court found that since the disputed bonuses had already been paid and the specific financial year had lapsed, there was no practical relief the court could grant.
“The application relates to a defined period the 2024/2025 financial year and the bonuses complained of have already been paid, granting leave would therefore be an academic exercise and a waste of judicial resources,” the judge stated
The court emphasized that judicial review is intended to resolve live disputes and not hypothetical or academic questions, unless exceptional public interest considerations apply none of which were demonstrated in this case.
As a result, the court dismissed the chamber summons dated October 8, 2025, on grounds of mootness. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the file was closed.
By Obegi Malack
Get more stories from our website: Sacco Review.
For comments and clarifications, write to: Saccoreview@
Kindly follow us via our social media pages on Facebook: Sacco Review Newspaper for timely updates
Stay ahead of the pack! Grab the latest Sacco Review newspaper!
