A legal tug-of-war between two High Court stations has intensified over the fate of disputed duty-free rice consignments at the Kilindini port, creating a significant constitutional dilemma for Kenya’s judicial system and state agencies.
The Legal Clash: Detain or Release?
At the heart of the conflict is a battle between two court orders issued just days apart, both impacting the same rice shipments. On one hand, the High Court in Kerugoya ordered the detention of rice imports as part of a legal challenge to the government’s policy, while, on the other, a separate court in Nairobi ordered the immediate release and clearance of the same consignments. This legal clash has posed an unprecedented challenge for government agencies like the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), which now finds itself caught between two conflicting judicial mandates.
The legal wrangling began in mid-2025 when the government authorized the duty-free importation of Grade 1 milled white rice through Gazette Notice No. 10353 of 2025. However, the policy was soon contested by farmers and public-interest litigants at Kerugoya, who argued that the scheme lacked proper public participation and violated legal requirements. On August 19, 2025, the Kerugoya court issued conservatory orders to cap rice imports at 250,000 metric tonnes, effectively halting further shipments pending the outcome of the petition.
Fast forward to January 2026, when the government introduced Gazette Notice No. 262, amending the importation window and raising further legal questions. On January 16, 2026, Justice Edward M. Muriithi of the Kerugoya court ordered KRA to detain the shipments tied to the controversial policy, adding further complexity to an already tense situation.
The Nairobi Twist: Ex Parte Order for Release
But on January 20, 2026, the legal landscape shifted when the Milimani High Court in Nairobi issued its own order. Justice Bahati Mwamuye granted an ex parte mandatory order directing the immediate release and clearance of pending duty-free rice consignments. The order, tied to national food security concerns, was based on Gazette Notices No. 10353 and No. 262, which allowed the importation of rice to help mitigate drought and famine conditions. The Nairobi ruling created a direct conflict with the Kerugoya decision, as one court called for detention while the other mandated release.
The clash has led to operational confusion for KRA and port authorities. Kerugoya’s filings warn that the agency cannot comply with both orders simultaneously, placing the state in an impossible legal bind. This has raised questions about how the government can navigate conflicting court directives without breaching the law.
Adding fuel to the fire, a key allegation has surfaced regarding the Nairobi order’s legal validity. In filings made at Kerugoya, it was revealed that the Milimani petitioners did not disclose the ongoing Kerugoya case or its orders when seeking relief. Such non-disclosure, if proven, could compromise the integrity of the ex parte process and lead to significant legal repercussions.
Despite the escalation, the Kerugoya court has opted for a cautious approach. On January 21, 2026, Justice Muriithi acknowledged the Nairobi ruling but chose not to issue a competing counter-order. Instead, he reaffirmed Kerugoya’s jurisdiction over the matter and called for a structured hearing on January 28, 2026, to resolve the ongoing legal disputes.
Meanwhile, Njema Commodities Limited, one of the importers caught in the crossfire, has distanced itself from the case. The company, initially listed as an interested party in the Kerugoya matter, filed a formal notice of withdrawal, further complicating the case’s dynamics.
The stakes are high, not just for the rice imports, but for the broader implications of the judiciary’s ability to enforce its own orders. When two courts issue contradictory rulings, especially when one mandates detention and the other demands release, the public’s confidence in the rule of law is at risk. The upcoming hearings on January 28 will be crucial in determining whether the two cases will be consolidated or managed separately to avoid further confusion.
The legal showdown over rice imports is not just about a policy dispute or the fate of a single shipment—it is a test of Kenya’s judicial coherence and the capacity of state agencies to navigate conflicting court decisions. How this case is resolved will likely have far-reaching consequences for Kenya’s legal system and its rule of law moving forward.
