Premium
Court blocks withdrawal of rice import case
Bags of rice at the Mwea Rice Growers Multipurpose Cooperative Society stores in Ngurubani town.
What you need to know:
- The original petitioner, the Farmers Party, sought to abandon the case.
- The court warned that constitutional litigation cannot be terminated at will.
The High Court has blocked the full withdrawal of a constitutional case challenging the government’s duty-free rice import programme, ruling that the dispute raises serious public interest issues that must be heard to conclusion.
In a ruling delivered in Kerugoya, the court allowed Kirinyaga Senator Kamau Murango and Baragwi MCA David Mathenge to take over the petition after the original petitioner, the Farmers Party, sought to abandon the case.
The court warned that constitutional litigation cannot be terminated at will where wider economic and public rights are at stake.
"The constitutional character of the petition, as pleaded, clearly raises constitutional issues of public participation, consumer rights, and violations of rights to property and life, among others," the court noted, citing a precedent that says courts must be mindful of the risk of abuse of process.
It held that the Farmers Party could not simply withdraw litigation that raised weighty constitutional and economic issues affecting rice farmers, consumers and national food policy.
The dispute centers on a Gazette Notice dated July 28, 2025, which authorised the duty-free importation of up to 500,000 metric tons of grade-one rice.
The Farmers Party had filed the petition in August 2025, accusing the National Treasury and Agriculture ministries of bypassing public participation, violating farmers’ property rights, and acting outside the East African Community Customs Management Act.
Immediately opposed
However, in December, the lobby group-cum-political party filed a notice seeking to withdraw the case “in its entirety, with no order as to costs.”
That move was immediately opposed by Senator Murango and MCA Mathenge, who asked the court to substitute them as petitioners.
They argued that allowing withdrawal would collapse interim orders that had already capped imports at 250,000 tonnes and expose thousands of rice farmers, particularly in Mwea, to losses from cheap imports.
Justice Edward Muriithi agreed that the case could not be treated as a private dispute. The judge stressed that the withdrawal of a constitutional petition “is not automatic” and must be sanctioned by the court after considering its legal consequences.
“The emerging jurisprudence is that public interest litigation is not a party’s private suit, which he or she may withdraw or discontinue at will,” the court observed, warning that unchecked withdrawals could be used to evade scrutiny of unconstitutional conduct.
The judge rejected arguments by state agencies, including the Kenya National Trading Corporation and the Agriculture and Food Authority, that the two lawmakers lacked standing or that similar cases elsewhere made this petition redundant.
Instead, the court found that the petition raised unresolved questions on public participation, consumer protection, farmers’ property rights, and the legality of repeated duty-free imports.
At stake is the balance between food affordability and the protection of local rice producers. Government agencies told the court that Kenya is a net rice importer and that duty-free imports were needed to stabilise prices and avert shortages.
Officials pointed to falling retail prices after imports began and warned that blocking further shipments could fuel hoarding and price spikes.
The intended petitioners countered that the government had failed to properly absorb local stocks before opening the import window.
They accused officials of acting in bad faith and structuring imports to favor private traders at the expense of farmers whose rice remained unsold in stores and fields.
In a key passage, the court described the contested gazette notice as having effectively become a “ward of court,” meaning its lifespan and implementation were subject to judicial control once conservatory orders were issued last year.
Allowing withdrawal, the judge found, would automatically revive the import authorisation and dissolve court orders without any determination of the constitutional questions raised. That outcome, the court said, would undermine public confidence and risk abuse of process.
The court ruled that the proper course in the matter was to proceed with the hearing despite the original petitioner’s wish to withdraw, given the convergence of public interests involved.
The decision keeps alive the case that pits farmers’ livelihoods against the government’s food security strategy, with significant implications for Kenya’s rice market and future import policies.
The case will be heard on January 6, 2026.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
