- Nairobi County is seeking to recover KSh924 million in alleged liquor licensing arrears from East African Breweries Limited (EABL)
- The county says EABL's historical licensing contribution stood at approximately KSh1 million, compared with up to KSh9 million paid by some major beverage manufacturers in neighbouring counties
- The dispute has taken a legal turn after court orders restraining the implementation of contested measures was obtained
Harry Ivan Mboto is a Current Affairs and Politics Editor at TUKO.co.ke, covering general news. Mboto has five years of journalism experience and joined TUKO.co.ke in 2024
Nairobi City County is seeking to recover KSh 924 million in alleged unpaid liquor licensing fees from East African Breweries Limited (EABL), arguing that major manufacturers should meet their county obligations just like small-scale traders.
Source: UGC
The county's Chief Officer for Business and Hustlers Opportunities, Lydia Mathia, said an internal audit uncovered long-standing revenue gaps and disparities in how liquor licensing fees were assessed and collected.
Speaking during a press briefing on Friday, October 23, Mathia said the amount was assessed under the Nairobi City County Alcoholic Drinks Control and Licensing Act, 2014, and the Finance Act, 2026.
“After rigorous internal audit scrutiny, EABL owes Nairobi County Sh924 million in outstanding liquor licensing arrears. We have held meetings with the company and extended an olive branch to address the matter, but our efforts to negotiate a resolution have not yielded the desired outcome,” Mathia said.
Why is Nairobi County demanding KSh924 million from EABL?
At the centre of the dispute is the difference between EABL's historical licensing contribution in Nairobi and the fees paid by major beverage manufacturers operating in neighbouring counties.
Mathia said some large manufacturers in neighbouring counties pay up to KSh9 million in local licensing fees, while EABL's historical contribution to Nairobi County has stood at approximately KSh1 million.
She argued that the disparity raised questions about whether the existing arrangements adequately reflected the scale of manufacturers' operations and their presence in the capital.
According to Mathia, the situation was also unfair to small businesses, including neighbourhood bars, restaurants and wines and spirits outlets, which are expected to comply with county licensing requirements.
The county rejected arguments that manufacturers' payments of excise duty and corporate income tax to the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) should exempt them from additional county licensing obligations.
While industry representatives have raised concerns that county charges could amount to double taxation, Mathia maintained that national taxes and county liquor licensing serve different purposes.
“Under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya (2010), Part 2, Paragraph 4(c), the mandate for liquor licensing is explicitly devolved to county governments, and this must be adhered to,” she said.
What did Nairobi County say about recovering the money?
Mathia said the county's enforcement measures were intended to protect public revenue and ensure businesses contributed fairly to services such as healthcare, water provision and road maintenance.
“This is public money that belongs directly to Nairobians who stand in line for healthcare, water and proper roads. The current enforcement approach by the Business and Hustlers Opportunities Sector is a direct response to a rigorous audit process, and we will pursue the recovery of all money lawfully due to the county,” she stated.
She described the situation as a “decades-long corporate free ride”, arguing that small traders should not face strict enforcement while the licensing obligations of major manufacturers remain unresolved.
The dispute has also involved the Alcoholic Beverage Association of Kenya (ABAK), whose representatives met county officials on October 14, 2026, to discuss the licensing framework.
According to Mathia, ABAK subsequently obtained court orders restraining the implementation of the contested measures. The county said it respected the authority of the courts and would comply with all orders currently in force as it pursues the matter through the judicial process.
“The county will pursue only what is legally due while ensuring that licensing assessments are fair, transparent and consistent with the law,” Mathia said.
Despite the dispute, the county said it was pursuing reforms intended to improve the business environment and make licensing more efficient and predictable.
These include the Unified Business Permit (UBP) and LiquorPay, a streamlined liquor licensing system designed to improve transparency and simplify compliance for businesses.
Source: TUKO.co.ke