A Kenyan High Court judge has ruled that Safaricom can take part in a legal dispute over how much telecom companies should pay for the radio airwaves that carry phone calls and mobile internet.

The ruling, by Justice John Anuro, overturns a decision by the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal that had shut the company out.

Mobile networks cannot work without spectrum, the invisible radio frequencies that carry calls and data between your phone and the network. Operators pay the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) every year for the right to use them.

In March 2025, the CA told license holders that new annual fees would start on July 1 of that year. The big change was in how the bill is worked out. Under the old system, an operator paid according to the number of transmitters in its network.

Under the new one, the charge depends on how much spectrum the operator has been assigned, with a separate price for each frequency band.

The CA says the update reflects inflation, changes in technology, the need to use spectrum efficiently, and the goal of encouraging investment and connectivity.

Jamii Telecommunications Limited, a smaller operator, took the new schedule to the tribunal and asked for it to be overturned.

It argued that the structure favors bigger companies with more money and a larger share of the market, and called it discriminatory, uncompetitive, unfair, unsustainable and unreasonable.

It also said the CA held only superficial public consultations before introducing the fees and ended up reinforcing existing inequalities in the market.

On April 24, 2025, the tribunal suspended the new fee schedule while it considered Jamii’s application. It has stayed suspended since.

Safaricom asked to join the case as an interested party. Its reasoning was that it pays these fees too, so the outcome affects its regulatory obligations, its costs, its business plans and its position against competitors.

It also offered to explain the technical and economic side of spectrum pricing and how it affects competition and service.

The tribunal said no. It found that Safaricom had not explained what harm it would suffer if left out, and it noted that the company had not said whether it supported or opposed Jamii’s appeal.

The CA also opposed Safaricom joining. It argued that Safaricom had not filed material setting out what it intended to argue, and it warned that letting the company in could prejudice the regulator’s response to Jamii and amount to “litigation by ambush.”

Jamii did not oppose Safaricom’s bid.

Safaricom appealed to the High Court, and the tribunal’s own proceedings were put on hold on September 19, 2025 while that appeal played out.

Justice Anuro said the tribunal had applied the legal test too rigidly. In his view, the tribunal had accepted that Safaricom would be affected by the dispute and then, oddly, concluded that it had shown no prejudice.

He pointed to Safaricom’s affidavit, which said the case could affect its regulatory obligations, financial outlay, business planning and competitive position. “That is a statement of prejudice,” the judge said. “It may not have been elaborate, but it is certainly not absent.”

He also rejected the idea that Safaricom had to pick a side first. An interested party is not the same as a co-appellant or co-respondent, he said. It can back some arguments, oppose others, or simply explain how the outcome touches its own position.

On the offer of industry expertise, the judge said the tribunal had treated it as a reason to refuse Safaricom, when it was only an extra point. The company’s main argument was that it is itself subject to the fee system being challenged.

The permission comes with conditions. Safaricom must stick to the issues Jamii has already raised. It cannot bring a new claim, add a ground of appeal, ask for a new remedy, or take control of the case.

The tribunal is expected to set deadlines for Safaricom’s affidavit and submissions, and the other parties will then get a chance to respond.

Safaricom paid the CA KES 16.3 billion in license fees in the year to March, up from KES 14.6 billion the year before, as per a report by Business Daily.

That figure covers license fees in general and is not the same as the specific spectrum charges under dispute, but it shows how large regulatory costs are for the company.

The ruling settles only who gets to take part. The main question, whether the new fee structure is fair and was properly introduced, is still before the tribunal.

A draft market review by the CA and the ICT Authority calls spectrum fees a significant operating cost and notes that the pricing changes are being litigated.

It also warns that a new structure could raise fees for operators with smaller networks, while stressing that pricing should not push smaller rivals out of the market.

That is close to the worry Jamii has raised, and the tribunal will have to weigh it against the CA’s case that the new method is more efficient.