Safaricom will have a say in a dispute over how much Kenyan telecom operators pay for radio spectrum, after the High Court allowed it to join Jamii Telecommunications' challenge to the Communications Authority of Kenya's (CA) revised fee schedule.

Justice John Anuro overturned an earlier decision of the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal, which had rejected Safaricom's request to take part as an interested party, according to Business Daily and TechTrendsKE.

What the fight is about

Spectrum is the set of radio frequencies that carry mobile calls and internet data. On March 10, 2025, the CA notified licence holders that new annual fees would take effect from July 1, 2025.

  • The new schedule charges operators in bands according to the amount of spectrum assigned to them, replacing a system based on the number of transmitters in a network.
  • The CA says the review reflects inflation, technological change, efficient use of spectrum and the need to support investment and connectivity.
  • Jamii argues the structure favours dominant players and has described it as "discriminatory, uncompetitive, unfair, unsustainable, and unreasonable". It also says public participation was superficial.

The tribunal suspended the schedule on April 24, 2025, pending a decision on Jamii's appeal, and the new fees have not been applied since.

Why the court let Safaricom in

The tribunal had turned Safaricom away, saying it had not shown the harm it would suffer or stated whether it supported or opposed Jamii. Safaricom appealed, and the tribunal proceedings were put on hold on September 19, 2025. Jamii did not oppose the appeal, but the CA did, warning that admitting Safaricom without a clear statement of its case could amount to "litigation by ambush".

Justice Anuro found that the tribunal applied the test too rigidly. Safaricom's affidavit had said the outcome 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 judge said.

He also rejected the demand that Safaricom pick a side. "A proposed interested party is not a proposed co-appellant or co-respondent," he ruled.

Limits and what comes next

Safaricom must confine itself to the issues Jamii has raised. It cannot bring a new claim, ground of appeal or remedy, or take over the case. The tribunal is expected to set timelines for Safaricom's affidavit and submissions, after which the other parties can respond.

The stakes are high for the operator, which paid the CA Sh16.3 billion in licence fees in the year to March, up from Sh14.6 billion a year earlier. A draft market review by the CA and the ICT Authority has warned that the new pricing could raise costs for operators with smaller networks, and said spectrum charges should not risk shutting out smaller rivals.

Photos: TechTrendsKE; Business Daily. Thumbnail design: HAMASTA MEDIA.