Sakaja Faces Pressure as Nairobi’s Sh100,000 Online Liquor Licence Sparks Traders’ Outcry

Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja is facing renewed scrutiny over liquor licensing after the introduction of a Sh100,000 licence for online alcoholic drinks sales triggered concerns among retailers about rising compliance costs and uncertainty over how the new charge will be applied.

The controversy centres on a new online alcoholic drinks licence under the Nairobi City County Finance Act, 2026. Traders are questioning why businesses that already pay applicable county licensing fees should face an additional charge for selling alcohol through online shopping platforms, retailer websites and delivery services such as Glovo.

The concerns extend beyond the amount payable. Retailers want clarity on whether the fee applies to each business, each online sales channel or every platform through which customers place orders.

The Retail Trade Association of Kenya (RETRAK) confirmed on October 7, 2026, that it had engaged Nairobi County’s Liquor Licensing Board over the new licence after submitting concerns about the 2026 Finance Act.

According to RETRAK, the board described the licence as an entry threshold for the online liquor market and indicated that it could apply separately to individual online sales and order-fulfilment channels, retailer websites and other online platforms.

RETRAK warned that this interpretation could multiply compliance costs for retailers operating through several channels. It called for clarity on the licensing unit, territorial application and the respective responsibilities of retailers, online marketplaces, fulfilment operators and delivery providers.

The association also said the board had committed to updating the licence terms and conditions and agreed to stakeholder engagement to develop a clearer and more workable framework.

For liquor retailers already operating under existing county licences, the proposed additional requirement raises questions about affordability and regulatory fairness.

A business selling alcohol through a physical outlet may also take orders through WhatsApp, maintain its own online shop and list products on third-party delivery platforms. If separate licences are required for different channels, the total cost of compliance could rise substantially.

Traders argue that such costs could be particularly difficult for small and medium-sized businesses already dealing with rent, salaries, stock purchases, utilities and other operating expenses.

They want the county government to explain the intended scope of the licence and whether businesses will be charged once or repeatedly for using multiple online channels.

The concern is not necessarily whether online alcohol sales should be regulated, but whether the licensing framework is proportionate, clearly defined and affordable for legitimate businesses.

The reported charge is associated with the Nairobi City County Finance Act, 2026, which provides the legislative context for the county’s revenue and licensing measures.

The Nairobi City County Assembly lists the 2026 Finance Act among its enacted legislation, with an assent date of July 31, 2026.

County governments have constitutional responsibilities relating to liquor licensing. However, businesses need clear information about the specific provisions governing the online licence, including its scope, the applicable fee schedule and the conditions under which payment is required.

The central question is how the KSh100,000 charge is defined and applied.

Does it attach to the retailer, the website, the online marketplace or the delivery channel? Does a trader who sells through several platforms need separate licences for each? And how does the requirement interact with an existing liquor licence for the physical premises?

These are practical questions that determine the actual cost of compliance.

The county’s Liquor Licensing Board and the relevant county departments should provide authoritative guidance so that traders can establish their obligations before committing resources to online sales.

Digital Licensing and the County’s Revenue Agenda

The dispute comes as Sakaja’s administration continues to digitise liquor licensing through LiquorPay, a platform intended to simplify applications, payments and licence issuance.

In February 2026, Nairobi County said the digital system was expected to increase the number of legally registered wine and spirits businesses by 30 per cent. Officials said the platform would reduce paperwork, limit the role of brokers and improve transparency in revenue collection.

Under the process described by the county, applicants can register online, generate invoices and pay through M-Pesa. Successful applicants receive a provisional licence pending inspection, followed by a full licence once their premises are approved.

The county has presented digitisation as a way to make licensing more efficient and predictable while expanding compliance and strengthening revenue collection.

However, the controversy over the online sales licence highlights the need to ensure that digitisation does not create uncertainty about the number of permits businesses must obtain or the cumulative cost of operating through different channels.

A digital application process can simplify administration, but businesses still need clear rules about what they are paying for and why.

The latest controversy follows previous disagreements between Nairobi County and liquor traders over licensing fees.

In 2023, provisions in the county’s Finance Act increased the annual fee for a general retail alcoholic drinks licence from Sh25,000 to KSh100,000, while the fee for an off-licence covering wine and spirits increased from Sh12,000 to Sh50,000.

The increases prompted objections from traders who questioned the affordability and clarity of the revised charges.

In January 2024, Sakaja received a report from a joint technical working group established to review liquor licensing fees following complaints from bar owners and liquor traders. The committee included county officials and industry representatives.

The current dispute therefore revives longstanding questions about the balance between revenue collection, regulatory enforcement and the sustainability of small businesses.

For retailers, the priority is a licensing system that is transparent, predictable and consistently applied.

Allegations of Raids and Confiscations Require Clarification

Traders have also raised concerns about alleged enforcement operations against businesses that do not comply with the reported online licensing requirement, including claims of raids, stock confiscation and employee arrests.

These allegations require independent verification and a clear response from the county government. The available reporting reviewed for this article does not independently establish that the alleged actions are being carried out specifically because businesses have failed to pay the new online licence fee.

The county should clarify the legal grounds for any enforcement operations, the circumstances under which stock may be seized and the procedures available to businesses that dispute a licensing assessment.

Businesses must comply with valid licensing requirements, but enforcement should be grounded in the law and accompanied by clear procedures for challenging disputed charges.

Sakaja’s Administration Faces Calls for Answers

The controversy leaves the county government facing several questions that will determine whether the new licensing framework can operate without imposing unnecessary uncertainty on legitimate retailers.

First, the county should explain precisely which businesses and online sales arrangements require the Sh100,000 licence.

Second, it should clarify whether the fee is payable once per business or separately for websites, marketplaces and delivery platforms.

Third, the administration should explain how the new requirement interacts with existing premises-based liquor licences and other applicable business permits.

Finally, the county should communicate the legal procedures governing enforcement and provide a clear process through which affected traders can seek clarification or challenge disputed assessments.

RETRAK’s engagement with the Liquor Licensing Board indicates that concerns about the licence’s application have already reached industry representatives and regulators. The association’s call for a clearer framework provides an opportunity for the county to address the questions before uncertainty spreads further across the retail sector.