By GPC News Desk
The High Court in Nairobi has allowed small-scale tea farmers from Kisii and Nyamira to commence a judicial review case challenging the 2025/2026 second tea bonus payments.
The farmers claim the payments are discriminatory, based on irregular financial calculations and contrary to the Tea Act.
Also Read
Milimani High Court Judge Dr Nabil M. Orina granted leave to Jeremiah Migosi Nyaribari and the other applicants to commence judicial review proceedings against the Tea Board of Kenya and other respondents.
The court directed the applicants to file the substantive motion in a separate cause within seven days and serve it on the respondents and interested parties. The respondents and interested parties will have 21 days to file their responses.
The Deputy Registrar will fix a mention date for further directions, while the miscellaneous file was closed following the directions.
The case, filed through I.N. Nyaribo & Company Advocates, targets the Tea Board of Kenya, KTDA Management Services Ltd, the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture and the Attorney General.
Sanganyi, Kebirigo and Tombe tea factories are named as interested parties, alongside 68 other smallholder tea factories listed in the application.
The farmers want the court to stop processing and payment of the bonuses announced by tea factories in September until the figures and formula used to calculate them are verified and brought into compliance with the Tea Act, 2020.
At the centre of the dispute is an alleged 470 per cent disparity between tea factories in the East and West blocks.
According to the court papers, Chebut/Kaptumo Tea Factories in the West Block announced a second payment of Ksh12.50 per kilogramme of green leaf, while Rukuriri Tea Factory in the East Block announced Ksh50 per kilogramme.
The applicants say the Ksh37.50 difference is unfair because farmers producing the same commodity under the same national tea marketing system should not receive vastly different payments based primarily on their location.
“The proposed payment will lead to catastrophic economic losses for the farmers,” the applicants state, warning that the disputed payments could lead to farm abandonment and worsening poverty.
The farmers want the court to determine whether the disparities violate Article 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and freedom from discrimination.
They also cite Section 36(6) of the Tea Act, which requires tea factories to pay growers at least 50 per cent of payment due for green leaf delivered every month, with the balance payable within three months after the end of the financial year.
The applicants further rely on a January 16, 2021 notice to tea industry players, which they say requires the monthly green-leaf price to be calculated using 50 per cent of monthly tea sale proceeds divided by total monthly green-leaf deliveries.
They accuse the Tea Board of failing to enforce its mandate to coordinate the tea industry, facilitate equitable access to benefits and prescribe the minimum amount and maximum period for green-leaf payments.
Rukuriri’s monthly payment and bonus would amount to Ksh80 per kilogramme, compared with Ksh36.50 for Chebut/Kaptumo. Njunu is listed at Ksh75.20, Ngere and Mununga at Ksh78, while Kebirigo and Ogembo are listed at Ksh43 and Ksh38, respectively.
Farmers cite KTDA loan audit
The applicants have also placed a March 2026 Tea Board audit of loans to KTDA-managed factories at the centre of their case.
According to the application, the audit found that 33 of 50 board resolutions reviewed did not specify the amount to be borrowed. It also identified cases where KTDA Management Services allegedly borrowed more than amounts authorised by factory boards.
Mogogosiek/Boito/Kobel, Tegat, Kapkoros Group, Kapset/Rorok, Chebut and Mudete were among factories cited in the audit over amounts allegedly borrowed or allocated beyond approved figures.
The applicants further claim the audit found that 40 factories had understated loan balances, while six had overstated them, raising questions about whether their financial statements presented a true and fair picture.
The audit also reportedly found that Kebirigo Tea Factory used term loans intended for capital-intensive projects to finance working capital.
The court papers state that East Block factories borrowed Ksh6.5 billion against a second-payment requirement of Ksh22.1 billion, while West Block factories borrowed Ksh24 billion against a requirement of Ksh6.4 billion.
The audit reportedly recommended that future second payments should be based on actual performance and available funds rather than borrowing and inflated stock valuations.
“Going forward second payment of green leaf should be based on actual performance and funds available other than borrowings and overstating stocks value,” the applicants quote the report as stating.
The farmers argue that the recommendation has not been adequately reflected in the 2025/2026 bonus declarations.
They also cite an audit of Njunu Tea Factory, alleging that directors’ expenses increased from Ksh6.8 million in 2021 to Ksh19 million in 2025.
The court documents state that Kenya has about 650,000 smallholder tea farmers, with approximately 75 per cent cultivating tea on half an acre or less.
The applicants argue that harvesting costs alone make the lowest announced bonus economically unsustainable, saying farmers pay more than Ksh15 per kilogramme to tea pickers, in addition to other production and factory-related costs.
They claim some farmers have already started uprooting tea bushes following the bonus announcements.
The farmers are seeking certiorari to quash the September 2026 bonus announcements, prohibition to stop processing and payment of the disputed bonuses, and mandamus compelling the Tea Board and Agriculture Cabinet Secretary to enforce what they describe as a fair and non-discriminatory payment formula.
They are also seeking an immediate stay of implementation of the announced payments pending determination of the judicial review case.
The October 8 directions do not determine the merits of the farmers’ claims. They allow the judicial review case to proceed, with the respondents and interested parties required to respond within the timelines set by the court.
