The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed a case by small-scale tea farmers challenging regional variations in last year’s tea bonus payments, on grounds that the matter had been overtaken by events.
Lady Justice R.E. Aburili found that the disputed tea bonuses had already been processed and paid and therefore could not grant leave for judicial review.
The application for judicial review orders had been filed by Jeremiah Nyaribari Migosi and the Gusii Small Scale Tea Farmers, who sought leave to challenge a September 2025 communication announcing varying tea bonus rates across two regions.
The applicants argued that farmers affiliated with factories in Eastern Kenya were paid between Sh55 and Sh57 per kilogram, while those in Western Kenya counterparts got between Sh10 and Sh13 per kilogram for the same fiscal year.
They argued the Sh47 difference was discriminatory and unlawful, considering that tea from both regions “is sold at the same auction and under the same branding”.
The small-scale farmers said the decision was a violation of their right to equality and non-discrimination, fair administrative action, and a breach of statutory duties under the Tea Act, 2020, as well as the Public Finance Management Act.
In their application, they sought leave to apply for orders of certiorari to quash the bonus decision, stop payment under the disputed formula, and mandamus to compel the Tea Board of Kenya to audit and enforce a fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory bonus formula.
They also sought a stay of bonus payments pending determination of the substantive case.
The respondents strongly opposed the application with the Tea Board of Kenya arguing that it had no statutory mandate to determine, approve, or standardize tea bonus payments as “bonus declarations fell within the commercial autonomy of individual tea factory boards”.
The Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) entities similarly argued that they are private limited liability companies governed by the Companies Act, and that their relationship with tea factories and farmers is contractual rather than statutory.
They contended that judicial review remedies cannot apply to private commercial arrangements and that the High Court had no supervisory jurisdiction over the matter.
The respondents further stated that the bonuses in question had been fully paid by October 10, 2025, rendering the case moot.
In her ruling delivered on January 27, 2026, Justice Aburili noted that Kenyan courts do not determine cases that no longer present a live dispute, unless exceptional public interest circumstances exist.
The court found that the applicants’ claim was confined to the 2024/2025 bonus period, which had already lapsed, and that no evidence had been presented to justify an exception to the doctrine of mootness.
“The court will not decide hypothetical or academic disputes,” the judge ruled, dismissing the application and consequently ordering each party to bear its own costs.
