South Africa’s Vodacom Group says it will file an appeal besides seeking a stay order to retain its majority ownership in Safaricom, after Kenya’s High Court nullified its acquisition of an extra 20 percent stake in the telco on June 30, 2026.
The court on Tuesday said the National Treasury concealed material information regarding the sale of its 15 percent stake in Safaricom, including the fact that it resulted in Vodacom taking a controlling 55 percent stake in the Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed firm.
The South African also simultaneously acquired a 5 percent stake in Safaricom from Vodafone Group, lifting its ownership from the previous 35 percent.
The government’s partial sale of its stake in Safaricom stake had already drawn legal action but the Attorney-General was granted an application to the Court of Appeal to lift a freeze on the deal on June 26, enabling the transaction to be closed two business days later.
The multinational says it will file an application to the Court of Appeal in the wake of the High Court’s decision.
“Subsequent to the Appeal Order, the High Court of Kenya provided a judgment on a petition against the acquisition, which judgment was handed down on September 15, 2026. Vodacom will review the judgment, and its implications,” the Midrand-based firm said in a market update on Tuesday.
“As interim steps, an appeal against the decision will be lodged with the Court of Appeal, as well as an application to stay the matter until an appeal is heard.”
The government also says it will appeal the decision but its attempts to convince the court to suspend the judgment, pending appeal, was rejected.
Vodacom acquired the government’s shares through a block trade on the NSE on June 30, the same day it also bought Vodafone’s shares through its investment vehicle Vodafone Kenya Limited (VKL).
The High Court’s three-judge bench held that the deal had been presented as a partial divestiture when in reality it amounted to a takeover that gave Vodacom effective control of Safaricom.
The court declared the divestiture invalid, null and void, quashed all approvals relating to the transaction and ordered that the 15 percent stake be restored to the Government of Kenya on behalf of the people.
“A declaration is hereby made that the partial divestiture of the 15 percent of the Government of Kenya shares in a camouflage merger or acquisition and takeover of Safaricom PLC is in contravention of the Constitution and the law,” said the court.
The court directed the parties including Attorney General, Safaricom and Vodacom to file a substantive application seeking a stay of the judgment.
The court noted that under the arrangement, the South African multinational’s ownership in the Kenyan telco rose to 55 percent after taking full ownership VKL through which it holds the shares in the Kenyan telco.
The judges found that this critical information was not adequately disclosed to the public, the Cabinet or Parliament.
“A declaration is hereby made that the partial divestiture of the 15 percent of the Government of Kenya shares in Safaricom PLC was marred with obscurities on the proposed buyer, misrepresentations and concealment of material information on the nature and effects of the partial divestiture in violation of the principles of integrity, transparency,” said the court.
The court also raised concerns about national security, noting that Safaricom operates critical infrastructure, including election transmission systems, government payment platforms, mobile money services and stores the personal data of millions of Kenyans.
“In the circumstances, even with regulatory safeguards, there is no guarantee that would prevent foreign and external influence or interference with the governance systems, personal security and data,” the court said.
The judges added that any perception of external influence over election transmission systems could undermine public confidence in the democratic process. They held that transferring effective control of such infrastructure to a foreign entity without a prior national security assessment violated the government’s constitutional obligations.
