High Court Blocks Attempt to Withdraw Petition Challenging Duty-Free Rice Imports
Quote from Lawyer on January 6, 2026, 8:51 amThe High Court has rejected an attempt by the Farmers Party to withdraw a constitutional petition challenging the government's decision to allow duty-free importation of rice, ruling that the case involves significant public interest issues that cannot be abandoned.
Justice Edward Muriithi, delivering the ruling in Kerugoya, denied the Farmers Party's December 2025 application to discontinue the petition without any costs. Instead, the court permitted Kirinyaga Senator Kamau Murango and Baragwi Ward Representative David Mathenge to substitute as the new petitioners, ensuring the case proceeds to full hearing.
The original petition, filed in August 2025, contested a Gazette Notice issued on July 28, 2025, which authorized the duty-free importation of up to 500,000 metric tonnes of Grade 1 milled white rice until December 31, 2025. The Farmers Party argued that the National Treasury and Agriculture ministries failed to conduct adequate public participation, violated farmers' property rights, and exceeded their authority under the East African Community Customs Management Act.
The case also named the Kenya National Trading Corporation and the Agriculture and Food Authority as respondents. It highlighted concerns over the potential flooding of the market with cheap imports, which could harm thousands of local rice farmers, particularly in the Mwea region, where unsold stocks from previous harvests remain in storage.
Government officials have defended the import program, stating that Kenya faces a substantial rice deficit. Annual demand reaches approximately 1.3 million metric tonnes, while domestic production covers only about 20 percent. Imports are essential to stabilize prices, prevent shortages, and avoid hoarding that could drive up costs further. Retail prices have reportedly decreased since imports began, though critics maintain that local stocks were not fully utilized before opening the market to foreign rice.
Earlier in the proceedings, the court issued conservatory orders temporarily halting the full 500,000-tonne importation. A subsequent ruling limited imports to 250,000 metric tonnes, to be completed within three months ending October 31, 2025.
Senator Murango and Representative Mathenge opposed the withdrawal, arguing that discontinuing the case would permit unrestricted imports and severely impact farmers in rice-growing areas. The court agreed, emphasizing that constitutional petitions raising matters of public participation, consumer rights, property protection, and economic policy cannot be dropped unilaterally when they affect broader national interests.
The judge rejected arguments from government agencies that the lawmakers lacked sufficient standing or that similar cases rendered this petition unnecessary. The ruling reinforces that public interest litigation serves to prevent potential abuse of process and ensures accountability in policy decisions affecting farmers and consumers alike.
This development keeps judicial oversight on the duty-free rice import policy, balancing the need for food security and price stability against the protection of local agricultural producers. The case will continue under the new petitioners, with potential implications for future government decisions on staple food imports.
The High Court has rejected an attempt by the Farmers Party to withdraw a constitutional petition challenging the government's decision to allow duty-free importation of rice, ruling that the case involves significant public interest issues that cannot be abandoned.
Justice Edward Muriithi, delivering the ruling in Kerugoya, denied the Farmers Party's December 2025 application to discontinue the petition without any costs. Instead, the court permitted Kirinyaga Senator Kamau Murango and Baragwi Ward Representative David Mathenge to substitute as the new petitioners, ensuring the case proceeds to full hearing.
The original petition, filed in August 2025, contested a Gazette Notice issued on July 28, 2025, which authorized the duty-free importation of up to 500,000 metric tonnes of Grade 1 milled white rice until December 31, 2025. The Farmers Party argued that the National Treasury and Agriculture ministries failed to conduct adequate public participation, violated farmers' property rights, and exceeded their authority under the East African Community Customs Management Act.
The case also named the Kenya National Trading Corporation and the Agriculture and Food Authority as respondents. It highlighted concerns over the potential flooding of the market with cheap imports, which could harm thousands of local rice farmers, particularly in the Mwea region, where unsold stocks from previous harvests remain in storage.
Government officials have defended the import program, stating that Kenya faces a substantial rice deficit. Annual demand reaches approximately 1.3 million metric tonnes, while domestic production covers only about 20 percent. Imports are essential to stabilize prices, prevent shortages, and avoid hoarding that could drive up costs further. Retail prices have reportedly decreased since imports began, though critics maintain that local stocks were not fully utilized before opening the market to foreign rice.
Earlier in the proceedings, the court issued conservatory orders temporarily halting the full 500,000-tonne importation. A subsequent ruling limited imports to 250,000 metric tonnes, to be completed within three months ending October 31, 2025.
Senator Murango and Representative Mathenge opposed the withdrawal, arguing that discontinuing the case would permit unrestricted imports and severely impact farmers in rice-growing areas. The court agreed, emphasizing that constitutional petitions raising matters of public participation, consumer rights, property protection, and economic policy cannot be dropped unilaterally when they affect broader national interests.
The judge rejected arguments from government agencies that the lawmakers lacked sufficient standing or that similar cases rendered this petition unnecessary. The ruling reinforces that public interest litigation serves to prevent potential abuse of process and ensures accountability in policy decisions affecting farmers and consumers alike.
This development keeps judicial oversight on the duty-free rice import policy, balancing the need for food security and price stability against the protection of local agricultural producers. The case will continue under the new petitioners, with potential implications for future government decisions on staple food imports.