NAIROBI, Kenya Jul 2 – The High Court has consolidated two constitutional petitions contesting the legality and transparency of Kenya’s fuel pricing framework, including a case filed by activist Francis Awino and another by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK).
Justice Roselyne Aburili ordered that Petition, filed by the LSK against the Attorney General and several State agencies, will serve as the lead matter after the court established that it raises substantially similar issues to Petition lodged by Awino.
The petitions question the constitutionality of the current fuel pricing mechanism and the management of funds collected through the Petroleum Development Levy Fund, with the petitioners alleging inadequate transparency, accountability, and public disclosure in the determination of fuel pump prices.
During the court session, all parties agreed to consolidate the cases to prevent duplication of proceedings and avoid conflicting court decisions.
In its response, the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) defended the existing pricing system, dismissing the petitions as baseless and legally unfounded.
Through an affidavit sworn by its Director of Economic Regulation and Strategy, Dr. John Mutua, EPRA stated that the regulator operates within the law and regularly publishes monthly fuel pricing schedules together with detailed explanations outlining the factors influencing pump prices.
The authority argued that the fuel pricing formula is clearly provided for under the Petroleum (Pricing) Regulations, 2022, which is publicly accessible, adding that information relating to pricing methodology and cost components has consistently been available to consumers and stakeholders.
EPRA also rejected claims that it had withheld information from the public, saying none of the petitioners had formally sought access to information regarding the pricing framework under the Access to Information Act.
According to the regulator, the regulations governing fuel prices underwent public participation and stakeholder consultations before being adopted, and there is no legal requirement to conduct fresh public participation whenever EPRA implements its statutory mandate.
The authority further explained that components such as storage costs, gross margins, and distribution charges are determined through stakeholder consultations under the Cost-of-Service Supply of Petroleum Products (COSSOP) study, the latest review having been undertaken in October 2024.
EPRA additionally opposed attempts by the petitioners to compel periodic reporting and accountability measures regarding the Petroleum Development Levy Fund through a structural interdict, arguing that such remedies are only granted in exceptional cases involving continuous violation of constitutional or legal obligations.
The regulator maintained that the petitions are largely driven by public dissatisfaction with global fuel market trends rather than evidence of unlawful conduct or procedural violations on the part of EPRA.
Justice Aburili directed all respondents who are yet to file their responses to do so within 14 days.
The petitioners will then have a further 14 days to file supplementary affidavits and written submissions, after which the respondents will be granted a similar period to respond before the matter returns to court for highlighting of submissions and further directions.
