A legal dispute over the proposed disposal of shares in Safaricom PLC has moved to the Court of Appeal, with former Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka taking a leading role in a case that has now taken on broader constitutional and political significance.
The matter, Civil Application No. E261 of 2026, stems from conservatory orders issued by the High Court halting or pausing the contested transaction. It was mentioned before the Court of Appeal earlier today and adjourned to noon for further directions, with the legality of the proposed share disposition at the centre of the dispute.
Safaricom, Kenya’s largest telecommunications company and operator of the widely used M-Pesa mobile money platform, has long been regarded as one of the country’s most strategically important corporations. Its blend of public listing and historical state-linked shareholding has repeatedly placed it at the centre of national debates whenever questions of ownership or restructuring arise.
In his submissions and public remarks following the court appearance, Kalonzo framed the case as one of national importance, strongly opposing any move to alter the company’s ownership structure. He said: “Safaricom is not for sale.”
He further described the company in emotive and constitutional terms, stating: “At the heart of it is a principle that admits no compromise: Safaricom PLC is not merely a corporation. It is a national institution, conceived in Kenya, built by Kenyans, and sustained by the tens of millions who depend on it every single day.”
Kalonzo also warned against what he termed the consequences of divestiture, saying: “To sell it is to sell Kenya’s soul and body.”
He added that the legal team would rely on constitutional protections and public interest principles in their argument before the court, stating: “We will present our case with the full force of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the sovereign interests of the Kenyan people behind us.”
The petitioners argue that Safaricom’s role in Kenya’s financial and communications ecosystem elevates it beyond an ordinary listed company, making any significant share disposal a matter of public interest requiring strict constitutional scrutiny. They cite its dominance in mobile money services, its extensive user base, and its integration into daily economic life as justification for heightened oversight.
Critics of the case, however, maintain that the matter should be treated strictly within corporate and commercial law frameworks. They argue that unless there is proof of illegality, procedural breach, or constitutional violation, courts should be cautious about interfering in shareholder transactions involving publicly traded companies.
The dispute has revived broader debate about the governance of companies with historical state involvement and strategic economic importance. While Safaricom is publicly listed and operates within a regulated market framework, its scale and role in Kenya’s digital economy continue to place it at the centre of public scrutiny.
As the Court of Appeal prepares to proceed with the matter, the ruling is expected to clarify the extent to which constitutional and public interest arguments can influence corporate transactions of this nature, particularly where national infrastructure considerations are raised.
