South Africa’s Vodacom Group says it will retain its controlling 55 percent stake in Safaricom as an appeal of a High Court judgement nullifying its acquisition of an extra 20 percent stake in the Kenyan telco continues.
The High Court issued its decision on September 15, 2026, noting that the National Treasury concealed material information regarding the sale of its 15 percent stake in Safaricom for Sh204.3 billion.
This included the fact that it resulted in Vodacom taking a controlling 55 percent stake in the Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed firm.
The South African firm also acquired a five percent stake in Safaricom from Vodafone Group at a cost of Sh68.1 billion, lifting its ownership from the previous 35 percent.
An application by Vodacom and other affected parties came before Nairobi’s Court of Appeal on October 13, 2026 seeking a stay order against the High Court’s decision.
“The [Court of Appeal] decided not to determine the application but instead recorded to fast-track the substantive appeal. The prevailing status quo in respect of the shares and purchase consideration shall be maintained pending the hearing of the appeal,” the Midrand-based multinational said in a trading update.
“The effect of the order is that [Vodacom] remains the registered holder of the Safaricom shares acquired from Government of Kenya (GoK) on 30 June 2026, and the corresponding purchase consideration paid to GoK is to be preserved, pending the hearing of the appeal.”
Vodacom bought the additional Safaricom stakes through its investment vehicle Vodafone Kenya Limited (VKL).
The South African firm says it remains confident in the strategic rationale for the additional investment in Safaricom, adding that it will update its investors on any material developments relating to the appeal process.
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, 2026, enabling the transaction to be closed two business days later.
A Vodacom shop in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Photo credit: Pool
Vodacom acquired the government’s shares through a block trade on the NSE on June 30, 2026, the same day it also bought Vodafone’s shares through VKL.
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 noted that under the arrangement, the South African multinational’s ownership in the Kenyan telco rose to 55 percent after taking full ownership of 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.
