Kenya’s High Court has blocked enforcement of an 18% cap on commissions charged by ride-hailing platforms.
It also rejected a three-year data retention rule as disproportionate surveillance and ordered a fresh regulatory process.
The judgment protects due process and privacy, but leaves drivers exposed to higher platform fees during the transition.
Court Resets Kenya’s Platform Economy Rules
Kenya’s High Court has halted enforcement of the 18% ceiling on commissions charged to ride-hailing drivers and vehicle owners, handing digital transport platforms a significant legal victory while reopening a difficult question about worker protection.
The court also stopped the National Transport and Safety Authority from enforcing a rule that required platforms to retain detailed passenger and driver data for three years and disclose it on demand.
It found key provisions of the 2022 regulations unconstitutional, then suspended the declaration for 12 months so the government could implement a fresh process.
Due Process and Privacy Drove Ruling
The commission ceiling was introduced after drivers complained that Uber, Bolt and other platforms were taking between 25% and 30% of trip earnings.
- Regulation 9 limited the platform share to 18% and barred contractual devices intended to push the fee above that level.
Bolt Operations OU challenged the framework in a 2025 petition.
- The court found that the government had not demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of the price control through a regulatory impact assessment.
- It also found that the regulations were gazetted while Parliament was in recess and enforced before legislative scrutiny and approval had taken place.
Privacy concerns were equally serious.
- Regulation 17 covered identifiers, pickup and drop-off locations, journey times, payment methods and pricing details.
- Requiring platforms to keep this information for three years and surrender it to the authority on demand created what the court described as continuous surveillance.
The ruling therefore goes beyond commissions: it sets limits on how regulators collect mobility data in a growing digital economy.
Better Rules Can Protect Every Participant
A lawful replacement can still protect drivers from excessive charges while recognising the costs platforms carry for technology, marketing, safety and payment processing.
- Evidence-based rules could require transparent fee statements, distinguish commission from other deductions and give drivers a meaningful voice in how fares and incentives are structured.
Privacy by design would also serve passengers, drivers and regulators.
- Authorities can request narrowly defined records for licensing, safety or investigations without building a permanent movement database.
- Clear retention periods, judicial or administrative safeguards and purpose limits would reduce misuse while preserving legitimate oversight.
Government Must Rebuild Rules With Evidence
The government now has 12 months to conduct genuine public participation, prepare a regulatory impact assessment and align the rules with the Constitution and enabling law.
- Driver associations, vehicle owners, platforms, passengers, privacy experts and competition authorities should all be part of that process.
The economic assessment should look beyond the headline commission rate.
- Drivers carry fuel, maintenance, insurance and financing costs, while platforms may change fares, bonuses and access to trips in ways that affect take-home income.
- A nominal cap can fail if other charges grow, and an unrestricted fee can undermine livelihoods when drivers have little bargaining power.
Regulators should therefore compare net earnings, service quality, platform costs and competition across different cities and vehicle types.
The data rules need the same precision.
- Authorities should identify the exact safety, licensing or enforcement purpose for each field, set the shortest defensible retention period and record every access request.
- Aggregated data may support transport planning without exposing a passenger’s individual journey.
More intrusive access should require a stronger legal basis and independent review.
During the transition, platforms should not treat the judgment as permission for opaque or punitive pricing.
Voluntary fee transparency, accessible dispute resolution and clear data notices would help preserve trust while the new framework is developed.
Path Forward – Rebuilding Fair Rules for Digital Mobility
Kenya has a 12-month window to create a lawful framework grounded in economic evidence, public participation and privacy safeguards.
The process must include drivers, passengers, platforms and independent experts.
A durable settlement should make every deduction visible, provide fair dispute mechanisms and limit data collection to defined purposes.
Worker protection and innovation do not require weaker rights; they require better designed rules.
Culled from: Blow for Uber and Bolt drivers as court blocks 18pc commission cap
