The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed a case filed by a group of small-scale tea farmers challenging disputed bonus payments, ruling that the matter had been overtaken by events and could no longer provide any practical remedy.
The decision comes amid ongoing tensions over tea earnings and follows recent directives from the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) to revise payment structures following months of farmer protests.
The court declined an application seeking judicial review against the Tea Board of Kenya, several KTDA subsidiaries, and the Agriculture Cabinet Secretary, finding that the contested bonuses for the 2024/2025 financial year had already been disbursed.
The court ruled that the farmers’ case was moot since the payments had been fully processed by October 2025, leaving no active dispute requiring judicial intervention.
"The disputed bonuses have already been paid out, meaning there is no live controversy for this court to determine," the judgment stated.
The lawsuit was initiated by Jeremiah Migosi and the Gusii Small Scale Tea Farmers, who accused tea sector regulators and KTDA of enforcing a discriminatory payment system that disproportionately disadvantaged growers in western Kenya.
The petitioners argued that farmers in western regions received between Sh10 and Sh13 per kilogram of tea, while their counterparts in eastern Kenya earned up to Sh55-Sh57 per kilogram—despite selling through the same auction system.
They contended that this disparity, exceeding 470 per cent, violated constitutional safeguards against discrimination and breached their right to fair administrative action.
Additionally, they accused the Tea Board of failing its statutory mandate under the Tea Act to protect farmers’ interests and ensure equitable industry growth.
In response, the Tea Board and KTDA defended the payment structure, stating that bonuses are determined by individual factory boards based on market performance, production costs, and operational efficiency—not by regulatory intervention.
They further argued that KTDA operates under private commercial agreements and does not perform public functions subject to judicial review.
The court sidestepped these substantive arguments, focusing instead on whether the dispute remained legally viable.
The judge emphasized that judicial review is designed to address concrete, ongoing conflicts rather than hypothetical or academic questions.
"The doctrine of mootness requires an actual controversy to exist at every stage of judicial review," the ruling noted.
Since both parties acknowledged that the 2024/2025 payments had been finalised by October 10, 2025, the court concluded that granting judicial review would serve no practical purpose.
"The applicants framed their case around a specific payment cycle rather than a systemic challenge to future policies," the judge observed. "Granting leave for judicial review would be a futile exercise."
The case unfolded against a backdrop of escalating farmers discontent over KTDA’s payment practices, particularly after bonuses dropped sharply compared to previous years.
KTDA attributed the decline to unfavorable global market conditions, regional quality variations, and a stronger Kenyan shilling, which reduced dollar-denominated export earnings when converted.
In September 2025, KTDA acknowledged the challenges in a public statement: "The drop in earnings stems primarily from adverse international market trends and unfavorable currency exchange rates compared to the previous year."
Under mounting pressure, KTDA has since proposed adjustments to its payment model. The agency’s board recently recommended capping monthly payments at Sh30 per kilogram of green leaf, with regional variations based on financial capacity.
Factories west of the Rift Valley—including Kericho, Bomet, and Kisii—were advised to target payments of up to Sh26, while eastern regions like Kiambu and Murang’a could aim for Sh30.
