Court stops implementation of Tea Levy
Petitioners contend that farmers were shut out of the formulation process and that the levy violates multiple constitutional principles regarding taxation, equality, and public finance.
The High Court has suspended implementation of the Tea Levy regulations pending an inter partes hearing of a petition filed by the Mazingira Greens Party of Kenya.
Justice Josephine Mongare of the Machakos High Court on Friday certified the constitutional petition as urgent and ordered that the matter be mentioned for directions on November 19, 2026.
Mazingira Greens Party of Kenya has sued the Tea Board of Kenya, the Agriculture Cabinet Secretary, the Attorney General and listed Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) as an interested party.
The party, through its chairman John Bunei, has challenged the constitutionality of Regulation 4 of the Tea (Levy) Regulations, 2026, which imposes a 0.8 per cent levy of the auction value on every export of made tea.
“Although the levy is imposed at the export stage, its economic burden is alleged to be passed on to small-scale farmers through reduced proceeds from their tea,” the court documents read.
Bunei argues that the regulations seek to allocate funds from the levy towards roads, “without adequate assurance of equitable burden sharing among the various participants in the tea industry, including multinational tea companies.”
The petitioners also argue that small-scale tea farmers were not afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the formulation of the levy and amendment to the Tea Act.
Mazingira Greens Party of Kenya tells the court that the levy raises concerns of unequal and potentially disproportionate treatment of industry participants.
“The impugned regulations raise substantial constitutional questions concerning equality and non-discrimination, protection of property, economic and social rights, public finance and the constitutional authority to impose taxes and levies.” The petitioner states.
In the petition, the political party is also seeking conservatory orders barring respondents from declining to issue tea export and import permits on account of non-payment of the levy.
The petitioner also wants the regulations suspended in their entirety until the matter is heard and determined.
They argue that regulation 4 and section 53 of the Tea Act violate Article 27 of the Constitution on equality and freedom from discrimination, Article 201 on principles of public finance, as well as Articles 94, 209 and 210 on imposition of taxation.
The petitioner also cites the respondents for violating principles of devolution and revenue sharing, Article 40 on the right to property, and Article 43 on economic and social rights.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this
