Kenya’s High Court has moved to streamline the growing legal battle over fuel prices by consolidating two separate constitutional petitions challenging the transparency and legality of the country’s fuel pricing framework. The decision, made on July 2, 2026 by Justice Roselyne Aburili, brings together a case filed by grassroots activist Francis Awino and a separate petition lodged by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK). (1)
Justice Aburili ruled that the LSK petition — filed against the Attorney General and several state agencies — will serve as the lead matter, after determining that both cases raise substantially similar constitutional questions. During the court session, all parties agreed that consolidating the matters was the most sensible path forward, a move designed to: (1)
- Prevent duplication of court proceedings
- Avoid conflicting judicial decisions on the same issues
- Streamline case management for a matter of significant public interest
What the Petitions Are Challenging
At the heart of both petitions is a dispute over how the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) sets fuel prices — and whether the process meets Kenya’s constitutional standards for transparency and public participation. (2)
The Awino Petition
Filed by Francis Awino, national convener of the grassroots economic justice movement Mtetezi, this petition specifically targeted the maximum retail prices EPRA set for the May 15 to June 14, 2026 pricing cycle. The announcement, made on May 14, 2026, saw: (5)
- Super Petrol rise by Ksh 16.65 per litre (to Ksh 214.25 in Nairobi)
- Diesel increase by Ksh 46.29 per litre (to Ksh 242.92 in Nairobi, a record high)
- Kerosene prices remain unchanged at Ksh 152.78
Awino argues the price review was “opaque, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair,” alleging violations of Article 47 of the Constitution on fair administrative action, as well as Articles 43 and 46, which protect socio-economic rights and consumer protections.. (2)
The Law Society of Kenya Petition
The LSK’s case, filed at the High Court and now designated the lead petition, echoes many of these same concerns. The lawyers’ body contends that the pricing formula used by EPRA is not only opaque but heavily influenced by layers of taxation that shift the burden onto ordinary consumers. The LSK alleges the pricing review process breaches Article 10 of the Constitution, which mandates transparency, accountability, and genuine public participation in state policy decisions. (1)
Central Issues Raised in the Fuel Price Case
Both petitions converge on several key demands and grievances. (2)
Disclosure of the Pricing Formula
Petitioners want EPRA and the National Treasury to publicly disclose a full breakdown of the fuel pricing formula, including (2)
- Landed fuel costs
- Applicable taxes and levies
- Exchange-rate assumptions
- Oil marketer profit margins
- The exact criteria used to determine final pump prices
Scrutiny of the Petroleum Development Levy Fund
A major point of contention is the Petroleum Development Levy Fund (PDLF), from which the government reportedly spent approximately Ksh 5 billion to cushion consumers against rising global oil prices. Petitioners argue this spending occurred “without adequate disclosure and accountability,” and are seeking court orders to freeze further use of the fund until a full breakdown of its management is provided. (2)
The Sulphur Standards Waiver
The Awino petition also challenges a temporary waiver of sulphur fuel standards announced on April 30, 2026 (with effect from May 1, 2026). The waiver raised the permissible sulphur content in diesel from 10ppm to 50ppm for six months, citing global supply disruptions affecting fuel imports via the Strait of Hormuz. Awino warns that relaxed limits could expose Kenyans to environmental pollution and public health risks, and wants the waiver suspended or, alternatively, for authorities to release the technical reports and public participation records underpinning the decision.
EPRA’s Defence
In its response to the petitions, EPRA firmly rejected the allegations of secrecy and unlawful conduct, arguing instead that the backlash is rooted in public frustration over global fuel market trends rather than any procedural failure on its part. (1)
Key points from EPRA’s defence in the fuel price case, sworn in an affidavit by Dr. John Mutua, Director of Economic Regulation and Strategy, include:
- The fuel pricing formula is clearly set out under the Petroleum (Pricing) Regulations, 2022, which is publicly accessible. (1)
- Pricing methodology and cost components have “consistently been available” to consumers and stakeholders.
- None of the petitioners had formally requested information on the pricing framework under the Access to Information Act before rushing to court.(1)
- The regulations already underwent public participation and stakeholder consultation before adoption in 2022, and the law does not require fresh public participation every time EPRA implements its statutory mandate.
- Cost components such as storage costs, gross margins, and distribution charges are determined through the Cost-of-Service Supply of Petroleum Products (COSSOP) study, last reviewed in October 2024.
EPRA also opposed calls for a structural interdict compelling periodic reporting on the PDLF, arguing that such a remedy is only appropriate in limited circumstances.
Timeline of the Legal Battle
The consolidated case is the culmination of weeks of escalating legal and public pressure: (3)
- May 14, 2026 — EPRA announces steep increases in Super Petrol and Diesel prices for the new pricing cycle.
- May 17–18, 2026 — Francis Awino and the Law Society of Kenya separately file petitions challenging the price hikes.
- May 21, 2026 — The High Court declines to certify Awino’s petition as urgent, directing that it instead be heard inter partes (with all parties present).
- June 2, 2026 — The matter comes up for further directions; court gives respondents 14 days to file responses.
- July 2, 2026 — Justice Aburili formally consolidates the two petitions, with the LSK case as the lead matter.
What Happens Next
With the cases now consolidated, the court has set out a clear timeline for how the matter will proceed: (1)
- Respondents who have not yet filed their responses must do so within 14 days of the July 2 ruling.
- Petitioners will then have a further 14 days to file supplementary affidavits and written submissions.
- Respondents will get an equal period to reply.
- The matter will then return to court for highlighting of submissions and further directions.
Why This Case Matters
The consolidated petition lands amid a broader cost-of-living crisis in Kenya, with rising fuel prices triggering matatu sector strikes, threats of nationwide protests, and mounting pressure on President William Ruto’s administration. Should the court ultimately side with the petitioners, EPRA could be compelled to overhaul its disclosure practices and provide unprecedented transparency into how pump prices are calculated — a ruling that would have far-reaching implications for fuel pricing policy, public finance management, and consumer rights across Kenya. (4)
For now, all eyes remain on the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court as the case moves through its next phase of filings and submissions. (1)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the High Court case about regarding Kenya’s fuel prices?
The High Court is hearing consolidated petitions filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and activist Francis Awino challenging EPRA’s fuel pricing transparency, the management of the Ksh 5 billion Petroleum Development Levy Fund, and the April 2026 sulphur standards waiver.
2. What are the petitioners demanding from EPRA and the government?
Petitioners want full public disclosure of the fuel pricing formula (including landed costs, taxes, exchange rates, and profit margins), a freeze on further PDLF spending pending accountability, and suspension or justification of the sulphur standards waiver on environmental and health grounds.
3. What happens next in the consolidated fuel price case?
Respondents have 14 days from July 2, 2026 to file their responses, followed by 14 days for petitioners to submit supplementary affidavits, then equal time for respondents to reply before the court schedules hearings for highlighting of submissions.
