By Benadeta Mwaura - Reporter
Kenya, 7 January 2026 - Clearing and forwarding agents (CFAs) have lost their long-running legal challenge against the Kenya Ports Authority’s (KPA) revised tariff book after the High Court dismissed their bid to block the changes, setting the stage for higher logistics costs that could ripple across Kenya’s import-dependent economy.
The ruling, delivered this month, upholds KPA’s right to implement updated port charges, a move the authority says is necessary to “modernise fee structures and ensure sustainability of port operations,” even as CFAs warn that the increased charges will ultimately be passed on to importers, manufacturers and consumers.
The KPA Tariff Revision and CFA Pushback
KPA introduced a revised tariff book in late 2025, making adjustments to several cargo handling and terminal service charges at Mombasa and Lamu ports, Kenya’s two largest seaports and gateways for East and Central African trade.
The revisions included higher fees for container storage, handling of bulk and break-bulk cargo, and updated demurrage rates designed to reduce congestion and encourage faster cargo movement.
Clearing and forwarding agents, who act as intermediaries between importers, exporters and port authorities, were among the most vocal opponents.
The Clearing and Forwarding Agents Association of Kenya (CFAAK) argued that the new tariffs came at a time of global economic slowdown, rising fuel costs and supply chain pressures, and that the burden should not fall disproportionately on logistics actors already squeezed by high operational costs and weak demand.
In November 2025, CFAAK petitioned the High Court seeking an injunction to suspend implementation of the tariff book, arguing that KPA had failed to sufficiently consult stakeholders and that the increases would undermine Kenya’s competitiveness as a regional hub.
Court Decision: No Suspension of Tariffs
The High Court ruled in favour of KPA, dismissing the CFAAK application and finding that the authority had acted within its statutory powers to revise port charges under the Kenya Ports Authority Act.
The judge also noted that tariff adjustments, while impactful, are a recognised function of KPA and that the petition did not demonstrate irreparable harm of a nature that legally justified an injunction.
In its judgement, the court emphasised that:
Port authorities worldwide regularly adjust tariffs to reflect operational realities, infrastructure investment needs, and regulatory requirements.
Stakeholder engagement, while desirable, does not automatically invalidate tariff changes when statutory procedures have been met.
The petition did not provide evidence showing that the revised tariffs were discriminatory or irrational.
Industry Reaction: Costs, Congestion and Competitiveness
Following the ruling, CFAAK President Esther Wairimu expressed disappointment, saying in an interview that “the increased tariffs will inevitably be passed on to importers and manufacturers, threatening higher consumer prices and eroding Kenya’s edge as a preferred transit route for regional cargo.”
Industry observers say that the tariff changes come against a challenging backdrop for Kenya’s shipping and logistics sector:
More from Kenya
East African ports such as Dar es Salaam and Djibouti have been aggressively marketing themselves as alternatives, especially for transit cargo for Uganda, Rwanda and South Sudan.
Rising global freight rates and currency volatility have already squeezed profit margins for many traders.
Delays in cargo clearance and inland transport bottlenecks have accentuated concerns about total logistics costs.
The tariff increases also coincide with broader efforts by KPA to modernise port infrastructure. Authority officials have pointed to investments in container terminals, digitisation of cargo tracking systems and expanded capacity at the new Lamu Port as long-term enablers of trade facilitation, improvements that require sustainable revenue streams.
“KPA’s revised tariff book will support critical infrastructure upgrades that enhance efficiency and reduce turnaround times,” said KPA Managing Director and CEO Eng. John Mwangemi in a recent statement. “The objective is to create a world-class maritime gateway that can handle growing volumes and deliver value to national and regional trade.”
Economic Implications and Regional Trade Dynamics
For Kenya’s economy, ports are a vital artery.
The Port of Mombasa alone handles more than 25 million tonnes of cargo annually, acting as a trade hub for landlocked neighbours including Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan and parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Higher port tariffs could:
Increase the cost of imports, affecting manufacturers who rely on imported raw materials.
Intensify competition with other regional ports offering lower handling costs or incentives.
Prompt logistical shifts, such as cargo diversion to alternate corridors if cost differentials widen.
According to a 2025 regional logistics report, Djibouti and Dar es Salaam ports have been gaining market share due to competitive pricing, infrastructural upgrades, and integration with national railway systems, trends that Kenya’s port sector seeks to counter through efficiency and investment.
With the court’s decision now backing the tariff revisions, CFAs and importers may turn to regulatory avenues such as lodging complaints with the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) or seeking parliamentary review.
There is also the possibility of engaging in further dialogue with KPA to moderate implementation timelines or introduce phased increases.
For now, the ruling stands, and KPA’s revised tariff book is in force.
Shippers, freight forwarders and logistics stakeholders are bracing for adjustments in contracts, pricing models and service delivery costs, all in a sector that remains central to Kenya’s economic resilience and East Africa’s trade competitiveness.
