CAK Annual Report FY 2024/25: Key Competition Law Developments

At the end of August 2026, the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) published its Annual Report and Financial Statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2025. The report shows an authority that remained highly active in merger control while continuing to pursue a substantial behavioural antitrust caseload and a smaller number of exemption applications.

For businesses and investors active in Kenya, the report offers useful insight into how the CAK is applying its merger control rules, the types of conduct attracting enforcement attention, and the growing importance of public-interest considerations in transaction review.

Merger Control Activity Remained High

The CAK received 128 merger-related applications during FY 2024/25 across sectors including manufacturing, real estate, financial and insurance services, energy, distribution, and ICT.

Manufacturing, distribution, and financial and insurance services together accounted for more than half of filings. Manufacturing remained the single largest sector, although its share of notifications declined compared to the previous year.

Of the 128 applications, 30 met the thresholds for full merger review. Nineteen fell outside Part IV of the Competition Act, generally because turnover or asset values were below the relevant thresholds. Forty-five related to COMESA regional merger notifications, six were found not to constitute mergers, and 28 involved requests for advisory opinions on whether notification was required.

Nearly half of all transactions had a cross-border element, reinforcing Kenya’s role as an important regional market for international and African investors.

Most Full Merger Reviews Were Cleared

Of the 30 transactions subject to full review, 28 were approved. One transaction, the proposed acquisition of Bamburi Cement PLC by Savannah Clinker Limited, was withdrawn, while the proposed acquisition of Regis Runda Academy by Makini School Limited remained under review at year-end.

Most approvals were unconditional. Manufacturing accounted for the largest share, with transactions across packaging, ceramics, stationery, beverages, coffee roasting, motor vehicles, and biological crop-protection inputs.

The CAK also cleared two transactions subject to employment-related conditions rather than traditional competition remedies.

Access Bank Plc’s acquisition of National Bank of Kenya was approved on condition that at least 80% of the combined workforce, approximately 1,360 employees, be retained for one year following completion. East African Packaging Industries Holdings Kenya Limited’s acquisition of Carton Experts Limited was approved subject to retention of at least 96% of the combined workforce, approximately 385 employees, for one year.

These cases demonstrate that public-interest considerations, particularly employment, remain an important part of CAK merger review. Parties contemplating transactions with significant workforce overlap should account for this in deal timetables and post-closing integration planning.

Advisory Opinions Provide Useful Guidance

The CAK also issued decisions on 28 requests for advisory opinions concerning merger notifiability.

Five requests were rejected, meaning the CAK concluded that notification was required. These included transactions where the parties had questioned the target’s market presence, whether turnover or asset thresholds were met, or whether the transaction resulted in a change of control.

Other matters were found not to constitute mergers. Common fact patterns included ordinary-course investment acquisitions that did not confer control, increases in shareholdings where the acquirer already controlled the target, transactions involving dormant or pre-operational entities, internal restructurings with no change in ultimate control, and a non-full-function joint venture.

A further eight transactions qualified as mergers as a matter of law but fell outside the notification regime because combined turnover or asset values remained below the KES 500 million exclusion threshold.

These decisions are instructive because they show that the CAK looks closely at control, economic activity, transaction structure, and local nexus rather than relying solely on formal transaction labels.

Behavioural Antitrust Enforcement Remains Active

The CAK investigated 75 behavioural antitrust matters during FY 2024/25. Of these, 28 concerned coordinated cartel conduct, 39 involved alleged abuse of dominance, and eight related to agreements involving trade associations.

Manufacturing accounted for the largest share of investigations, followed by agriculture, ICT, health, transport, telecommunications, and retail.

One of the most significant matters involved the Kenya International Freight and Warehousing Association (KIFWA). The association had directed members to apply minimum cargo tariffs, which the CAK treated as price fixing. KIFWA requested a negotiated settlement, admitted the contravention, and agreed to pay a fine, undertake competition law compliance training, and submit a compliance programme for approval.

The matter highlights a continuing area of risk for trade and industry associations. Recommendations or guidance on minimum prices, fees, or tariffs may attract scrutiny even where they are presented as measures intended to prevent undercutting or improve market stability.

Exemption Applications Show a Case-by-Case Approach

Only four exemption applications were under review during the year, but three involved trade associations seeking relief for collective pricing or fee arrangements.

These included applications concerning brokerage fees, minimum freight pricing, and bottled water pricing. All three remained unresolved at year-end.

The fourth application, submitted by the National Oil Corporation of Kenya in relation to a proposed strategic partnership with Rubis Energy Kenya, was approved because the CAK concluded that the expected public benefits outweighed the potential lessening of competition.

The combination of enforcement against KIFWA and the pending exemption applications suggests that the CAK is not taking a blanket approach to collective pricing arrangements. Instead, it appears to be assessing whether particular arrangements can produce sufficient public benefits to justify restrictions on competition.

What Businesses Should Take From the Report

The annual report reinforces several themes relevant to companies operating in Kenya.

First, merger control remains a central enforcement priority, with cross-border transactions accounting for a significant share of the CAK’s workload. Parties should assess notifiability early and should not assume that minority investments, restructurings, joint ventures, or transactions involving limited local turnover automatically fall outside the regime.

Second, public-interest considerations can materially affect merger clearance. Employment protections may influence both transaction timing and post-closing integration.

Third, trade associations remain an important enforcement focus. Businesses participating in industry groups should carefully review discussions or guidance involving pricing, fees, output, or other competitively sensitive matters.

Finally, advisory opinions continue to provide a useful route where jurisdiction is uncertain. Given the CAK’s willingness to examine substance over form, early engagement may be particularly valuable in transactions involving complex control structures or limited local activity.

Speak With BREMER About Kenyan Competition Law

BREMER advises businesses and investors on merger control, antitrust, and competition compliance across Africa and the Middle East.

If your business is considering a transaction or commercial arrangement involving Kenya, BREMER can help assess notification requirements and competition law risk.