Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja’s new KSh100,000 online liquor licence risks turning digital business expansion into an expensive gamble for liquor retailers, piling fresh costs on traders already paying for premises, stock, workers and existing county licences. The charge raises a blunt question for City Hall: why should a business pay more simply because it wants to reach customers online?
As of Thursday, October 29, 2026, the Retail Trade Association of Kenya (RETRAK) is seeking clarification from the county over how the licence, introduced under the Nairobi City County Finance Act, 2026, will apply to retailers selling alcoholic drinks through digital platforms. The association’s concerns expose a costly uncertainty that Sakaja’s administration needs to resolve before businesses are left to navigate the rules at their own expense.
A six-figure bill for selling online
For a small liquor retailer, KSh100,000 is not pocket change. It is money that could pay rent, replenish stock, meet salaries or keep a business running during a difficult month. Requiring businesses to shoulder another substantial licensing charge risks squeezing profit margins, discouraging investment and pushing up prices for customers.
A collage of Sakaja and the late contractor.
The stakes become even higher if City Hall applies the fee separately to different online sales channels.
Retailers using their own websites alongside Glovo, Uber Eats, Bolt Food, Jumia and other digital platforms could face a far larger bill if each channel attracts a separate licence. That interpretation has not been confirmed, but the uncertainty itself is a problem for businesses that need to calculate costs before expanding.
RETRAK has asked the Liquor Licensing Board to clarify whether the licence applies to individual platforms, retailers or separate order-fulfilment arrangements. The board reportedly said the charge was intended to establish an entry threshold for the online liquor market and agreed to stakeholder engagement.
That response is not enough. Traders need clear rules, a definitive fee structure and an explanation of what the additional KSh100,000 actually covers.
Nairobi businesses are already grappling with rising operating costs, as illustrated by recent complaints from traders over tax-related pressure. Introducing another expensive compliance requirement without clear guidance risks adding to that burden.
Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja looking emotional durng a past event. Photo: Nation Source: Facebook.
Sakaja must explain the cost of his digital agenda
In February 2026, Sakaja’s administration launched LiquorPay, a digital system intended to simplify liquor licence applications, reduce paperwork and improve transparency.
But digitising a service and making it affordable are two different things. A platform may make payments easier while leaving businesses with a bigger bill. If online retailers must pay substantially more to operate through digital channels, the county’s promise of easier business operations deserves serious scrutiny.
Sakaja must explain why the new fee is necessary, how the KSh100,000 figure was determined and whether one licence will cover a retailer across multiple platforms. City Hall must also clarify how it will prevent overlapping charges and ensure that compliant businesses are not penalised for adopting technology.
The governor’s wider revenue strategy has also faced scrutiny, including questions over Nairobi’s revenue collection and funding claims.
Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja during a past Senate session. Photo: Standard Digital. Source: Facebook.
The immediate issue, however, is straightforward: businesses should not be forced to make costly decisions based on unclear licensing rules.
If Sakaja wants Nairobi retailers to embrace digital commerce, his administration must demonstrate that its policies support that ambition rather than make it more expensive. Otherwise, a licence intended to regulate online liquor sales could end up discouraging the very businesses City Hall expects to license, regulate and tax.
The governor owes traders a clear explanation, not another layer of uncertainty. Before the new charge becomes an additional burden on businesses, City Hall must spell out exactly who pays, what they pay for and whether the same business will be charged repeatedly for selling through different online channels.
