Betika Kenya is facing a fresh High Court challenge over its new gambling licence, with court documents raising questions about how the betting company received approval to operate while serious complaints involving stolen customer information remained unresolved.
In an urgent application dated Monday, October 12, 2026, Benedict Kabugi Ndungu, through lawyer Mary Waweru, accused the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Kenya of issuing fresh licences to Betika despite pending complaints and court restrictions.
A page showing details of an ongoing legal suit on Betika. Photo/Screengrab by Kenya Digest
Betika accused of receiving secret licences
According to documents filed at the Milimani High Court, the regulator issued Betika, which operates under Shop and Deliver Limited, a fresh licence on October 2, 2026, and another on October 6.
The applicant says the licences were issued without informing the court, despite ongoing proceedings questioning whether Betika should be allowed to continue operating.
The certificate of urgency states:
“While the matter was pending mention on 6th October 2026, the Respondent had already signed fresh licences on 2nd October 2026 for Shop and Deliver Limited (Betika).”
The application further accuses the regulator of “suppressing these material facts from the Court.”
These accusations have not been established as findings against Betika or the regulator.
A page showing details of an ongoing legal suit on Betika. Photo/Screengrab by Kenya Digest
Court orders raise questions over Betika operations
The dispute follows interim High Court orders issued on October 6, 2026, restricting the approval and activation of fresh gambling licences while complaints undergo review.
The applicant wants the court to clarify whether those restrictions cover Betika’s licences signed before and on the date of the orders.
Court papers accuse the regulator and affected betting operators of using the disputed licences to continue collecting money from customers.
An attached Safaricom payment confirmation shows a KSh50 payment to Betika on October 11, 2026, through Paybill number 290290.
The payment record supports the applicant’s argument that transactions continued, but does not, by itself, prove that Betika broke a court order.
Stolen Safaricom customer data raises concerns
Betika’s licensing dispute is also linked to an earlier High Court judgment involving the exposure of Safaricom subscribers’ private information.
A page showing details of an ongoing legal suit on Betika. Photo/Screengrab by Kenya Digest
The case involved information such as phone records, financial transactions, betting activity and other personal details.
In the May 2026 judgment, the court found Safaricom responsible for violating the privacy rights of 11 subscribers and awarded each KSh900,000.
Evidence presented in that case included communications mentioning Betika among possible recipients of subscriber information.
However, Betika was not a party to that case, and the judgment did not establish that the betting company committed data theft.
The latest application describes the wider matter as involving “systemic personal data breaches and the commercial exploitation of stolen subscriber data affecting millions of Kenyan citizens.”
The applicant wants the regulator to investigate these concerns before allowing Betika to operate under renewed licences.
What the court could decide about Betika
The new application asks the High Court to extend its earlier orders, clarify their effect on the disputed licences and require the regulator to submit a sworn report explaining the approvals.
It also states that Betika filed a notice of appeal on October 6, challenging the interim orders.
The applicant argues that filing an appeal does not automatically suspend a court order.
The dispute now centres on whether Betika received its new licences through a lawful process and whether the regulator properly examined the complaints against it.
For Kenyan customers, the key questions concern the legal status of Betika’s operations and the protection of their personal information.
The court has not made a final ruling on the fresh application, and Betika’s response to its accusations is not included in the supplied filing.
