Two High Court Stations, One Rice Gazette, and a Rule-of-Law Collision

A quiet but consequential court battle over duty-free rice imports has escalated into a rare constitutional flashpoint: conflicting High Court orders issued days apart from different stations—Kerugoya and Nairobi—directing state agencies to do opposite things on the same subject matter.

At stake is not only the fate of detained rice consignments at the Coast, but a deeper question for Kenya’s justice system: what happens when court orders collide, and administrative actors are pushed to “choose” which judge to obey?

The background: a stayed import window and a judicial cap

The dispute traces back to mid-2025 when the government, through Gazette Notice No. 10353 of 2025, opened a duty-free importation window for Grade 1 milled white rice. In proceedings filed at Kerugoya (Constitutional Petition No. E009 of 2025), farmers and public-interest litigants challenged the framework, arguing it lacked proper public participation and legal basis.

On 19 August 2025, the High Court at Kerugoya issued substantive conservatory orders capping duty-free rice importation at 250,000 metric tonnes and restraining further importation beyond that limit pending determination of the petition.  

That litigation—and the court’s supervisory control over the impugned policy instrument—has remained active since last year.  

Kerugoya enforcement: protective and coercive orders (16 January 2026)

On 16 January 2026, Justice Edward M. Muriithi issued further urgent orders in the Kerugoya matter, granting conservatory relief and directing the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) to use its mechanisms to detain the alleged consignments until further directions of the court.  

The trigger, according to the enforcement papers filed in Kerugoya, was Gazette Notice No. 262 of 2026, which was presented as an amendment intended to alter the operative dates and extend the importation regime that was already under judicial control.  

In short: Kerugoya moved from “policy challenge” to “order enforcement,” including preservation of the subject matter through detention of rice linked to the disputed gazette framework.  

The Nairobi twist: ex parte interim mandatory orders (20 January 2026)

Days later, on 20 January 2026, a separate constitutional petition was filed at the Milimani High Court in Nairobi—HCCHRPET/E039/2026, Victor Okoth Onunga v Cabinet Secretary National Treasury and Economic Planning & others—framed as a matter of national food security and drought/famine mitigation.  

Justice Bahati Mwamuye issued ex parte conservatory orders “in the nature of an interim mandatory order” compelling the relevant respondents to immediately secure the clearing, release and customs entry into Kenya of pending and incoming duty-free rice shipments under Gazette Notice No. 10353 of 2025 and/or Gazette Notice No. 262 of 2026, subject to inspection and certification requirements.  

The practical effect is straightforward: where Kerugoya orders required detention, the Nairobi orders required release and facilitation—creating an operational and legal contradiction for agencies like KRA and port enforcement units. Kerugoya’s subsequent filings explicitly warn that KRA “cannot simultaneously detain… and release” on the same consignments.  

The central allegation: material non-disclosure

The most serious issue raised in the Kerugoya filings is how the Nairobi ex parte orders were obtained. In an application filed at Kerugoya after the Milimani ruling, counsel on record states they reviewed the Milimani petition and supporting affidavits and contend that there was no disclosure of the Kerugoya petition, the conservatory orders of 19 August 2025, the continuing supervisory context, or the enforcement orders of 16 January 2026.  

Legally, this matters because ex parte relief—especially interim mandatory orders—carries a heightened duty of candour. Courts rely entirely on what the applicant discloses at that stage. If parallel proceedings and existing orders are withheld, the integrity of the process is put under strain. At this point, these remain allegations raised in court filings; the Milimani petitioners and their counsel are entitled to respond, and the court will determine the issue.

Kerugoya’s response: “avoid multiplicity… and counter-orders”

On 21 January 2026, Justice Muriithi issued directions acknowledging the Nairobi order but declined to issue a competing “counter-order,” stating that since Kerugoya’s orders already existed (and had been extended), the Nairobi order “must have been granted without notice of the prior orders,” and that to avoid multiplicity and counter-orders, it was sufficient that Kerugoya’s existing orders be served on relevant respondents.  

This is an important institutional signal: the Kerugoya court did not attempt to “fight back” through a parallel escalation of orders. It instead reaffirmed its continuing control over the matter and directed parties toward orderly hearing/directions on 28 January 2026.  

The “curious” commercial subplot: a detained importer joins, then seeks to exit

Meanwhile, one importer—Njema Commodities Limited—appears in the Kerugoya record as an Interested Party. It later filed a formal Notice of Withdrawal, stating it had “wholly withdrawn from the present Petition.”  

The timing has raised eyebrows among litigants who argue the detained-rice dispute is being strategically repositioned across stations. However, withdrawal from proceedings is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing; it is a procedural step whose significance will depend on what the court finds about the broader chronology and the content of pleadings already on record.

Why this matters beyond rice: the administration of justice

This is no longer just a fight about consumer prices, farm-gate livelihoods, or tax waivers. It is now also about the coherence of the judicial system and the enforceability of court orders.

When two courts of concurrent jurisdiction issue mandatory directions on the same subject matter—especially where one set of orders requires detention while another compels release—state agencies are placed in an impossible position. If they comply with one order, they risk contempt of the other. That is a governance hazard, and it undermines public confidence in the rule of law.

Kerugoya’s filings frame the Nairobi orders as an imminent threat to the efficacy of the pending contempt proceedings and the underlying petition—arguing the dispute could be defeated by fait accompli before scheduled hearings.  

What happens next: consolidation, transfer, and a crucial hearing date

The Kerugoya court has set 28 January 2026 for hearing/directions on the pending applications.  

A key question for the judiciary—and for the public—is whether the matter will be consolidated/managed to prevent conflicting orders, and whether the Milimani court will be asked to revisit the ex parte relief in light of the Kerugoya record.

Right of reply

This publication is reporting from court orders and filed applications. The allegations of material non-disclosure and the implications drawn from the chronology are live issues that remain to be determined in court. The Milimani petitioners, the National Treasury, the Ministry of Agriculture, KRA, and the Interested Party are entitled to comment. Any responses will be reflected in an update.