Kenya Insights

Tag: Communications Authority of Kenya

  • High Court Blocks Attempt to Revoke Standard Group Licences

    High Court Blocks Attempt to Revoke Standard Group Licences

    In a major relief to one of Kenya’s leading media houses, the High Court on Wednesday, April 16, halted the revocation of Standard Group’s broadcasting licences by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA).

    This comes after Standard Group PLC raised alarm over what it termed as an attempt to silence the press.

    The broadcaster said the government was targeting it for highlighting uncomfortable truths. The court’s move now gives the media company time to defend itself ahead of a May 2 hearing.

    High Court Blocks Attempt to Revoke Standard Group Licences

    Standard Group Licences Saved—for Now—as Court Steps In

    The High Court’s decision followed a petition filed by Standard Group PLC, the parent company of KTN. The company accused the Communications Authority (CA) of threatening to withdraw its broadcasting licences unfairly.

    According to Standard Group, CA cited a debt of Ksh43 million as the reason for the planned revocation.

    In response, Standard Group clarified that it had an ongoing agreement with the government to repay the debt in monthly installments.

    Initially, the plan was to pay Ksh2.5 million each month. Later, the media house voluntarily raised the repayment to Ksh4 million per month—a move it claims to have honoured consistently. Despite this, the company received a letter dated April 9, signed by CA Director General David Mugonyi.

    The letter warned of an impending revocation of Standard Group licences, sparking concerns of media censorship.

    The company responded by moving to court and requesting an injunction to stop CA from publishing the revocation notice.

    The court granted the temporary orders, stopping the revocation process until May 2, when the case will be heard. This legal intervention has given the broadcaster a lifeline to continue operating its television and radio stations.

    Accusations of Intimidation and Unpaid Government Debt

    Standard Group has argued that the move to revoke its broadcasting rights is not just about unpaid fees. The company believes it’s being punished for its critical coverage of President William Ruto’s administration.

    Chief Executive Editor Chacha Mwita did not hold back. He accused the government of using financial pressure as a way to silence independent journalism. Mwita claimed that the state itself owes Standard Group over Ksh1.2 billion for past advertisements—a debt that has gone unpaid for years.

    He questioned why the government is quick to act on what the company allegedly owes, while ignoring its own obligations.

    “What I always say is that what we publish and carry is the reality of the day,” Mwita remarked. “So if the reality changes, then the headlines will change. We are not going to report things that are not the reality just to make some people happy.”

    The editor’s remarks suggest that the media house will not compromise its editorial independence, even in the face of threats. The ongoing standoff raises serious questions about media freedom in Kenya.

    It also highlights the financial challenges media houses face when relying on state advertising revenue, especially when the government delays payment.

    With the High Court stepping in, Standard Group licences remain active—at least for now. The final decision will depend on the outcome of the May 2 hearing.

    Until then, the case serves as a crucial test for press freedom, rule of law, and the government’s relationship with the media.

     

  • How Lawyer Nelson Havi Used Legal Loophole To Demand More Money From A Client

    How Lawyer Nelson Havi Used Legal Loophole To Demand More Money From A Client

    Former Law Society of Kenya President Nelson Havi is locked in a viscous court battle with a client over legal fee that is claimed to have been bloated. The client is accusing Havi of going against their initial agreement while the lawyer is hanging on a legal loophole to legitimize his claim.

    Communications Authority of Kenya chairperson Mary Wambui is contesting a Sh133.7 million invoice raised by Havi & Company Advocates, claiming that she was to pay Sh12.18 million round figure for all eight cases with a value of Sh5.86 billion in which the law firm represented her.

    When an advocate and client differ over legal fees, the former files a bill of costs before the deputy registrar, who is referred to as a taxing master. The client can then contest the bill before the deputy registrar decides.

    Mr Havi won the first round of the battle, as deputy registrar Stephany Bett in December refused to strike out his bill of costs.

    The losing party can challenge the decision by filing a reference before a High Court judge.

    Ms Wambui has now challenged that decision at the High Court, insisting that she had a prior agreement with Mr Havi to pay Sh12.18 million for all eight cases.

    But Mr Havi insists that Ms Wambui’s challenge cannot be called a reference from the deputy registrar, as no determination has been made on his bill of costs.

    Mr Havi represented Ms Wambui, her daughter Purity Njoki, and seven companies owned by the CA chairperson in eight cases filed against them by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) in 2021.

    In the cases, the KRA also sued several banks, as the taxman sought to attach accounts to recover Sh5.86 billion.

    The Loophole

    On June 29, 2023, Mr Havi filed eight bills of costs, one for each case in which he represented Ms Wambui and her group, seeking Sh133.7 million.

    Ms Wambui then filed an application seeking to strike out the bills, as she claimed that there was a prior agreement for Sh12.18 million which she had settled in full.

    On December 6, 2023 deputy registrar Ms Bett dismissed the applications, holding that there was no evidence of an agreement on a fixed fee between the advocate and his client.

    Ms Wambui argued that a letter from Havi & Company Advocates demanding Sh12.18 million was an agreement to pay the amount as a final fee for all eight cases.

    Deputy registrar Bett agreed with Havi & Company Advocates in ruling that the letter Ms Wambui cited did not cite the Sh12.1 million as a final fee.

    Ms Bett held that such an agreement for a fixed fee must be clear on what the final fee is, and must be signed by the client. She added that there was no evidence of a binding agreement capping the legal fees at Sh12.18 million.

    “In this case, both the letters are not signed by the client. Whereas an agreement my view, for a document to be said to constitute a valid and binding agreement for purposes of section 45 of the Advocates Act, the same must not only be unequivocal that it signifies what the final precise final amount is but must be signed by the person to be charged who in this case is the client,” Ms Bett ruled when dismissing Ms Wambui’s objection to the bill filed by Mr Havi.

    In her case before the High Court, Ms Wambui now claims that the deputy registrar was wrong to find that a fee agreement must be signed by both the advocate and the client.

    She further claims that Ms Bett relied on the wrong principles of law in refusing to strike out Mr Havi’s bill of costs.