The High Court in Kerugoya, Kenya, has directed the executive and Parliament to finalize a comprehensive legal and policy framework governing Artificial Intelligence within six months. This ruling was delivered on Thursday, November 12, by Justice Edward Muriithi, setting a deadline of May 13, 2027. The court's directive aims to conclude the necessary legislative and policy work required for regulating AI in the country.
The legal challenge was initiated by John Wangai, Peter Agoro, and Dr. Antony Manyara, who argued that the absence of a binding AI law exposes Kenyan citizens to potential breaches of their constitutional rights. They expressed concerns over the deployment of AI-powered tools across various public sectors, including automated household assessments, facial recognition technology, and predictive policing tools. The petitioners contended that these technologies risk entrenching discrimination, eroding personal privacy and dignity, and potentially widening societal inequalities.
The petitioners also challenged the Kenya Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025–2030, arguing that a strategy document lacks the legal force of legislation. They maintained that such a strategy does not establish enforceable rights, create a regulatory body with genuine enforcement powers, or provide a remedy for those affected by AI systems. In their original filing, the petitioners sought orders compelling the government to release a draft National AI Policy Framework and to table corresponding legislation before Parliament within ninety days.
Government respondents, including the Cabinet Secretary for Information, Communications and the Digital Economy and the relevant Principal Secretary, affirmed that regulatory action was already underway. They referenced the launch of Kenya’s AI Strategy in March 2025 and stakeholder consultations held in February 2026. Furthermore, the government cited the publication of a draft National AI and Other Emerging Technologies Policy for public participation on July 21, 2026.
The government also stated that existing statutes, such as the Data Protection Act, Consumer Protection Act, and Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, provide adequate protections. Regarding specific applications, the Social Health Authority defended its means-testing system, asserting it operates within a statutory framework, incorporates human oversight, and allows members to contest their assessments.
Justice Muriithi ultimately determined that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate any actual or imminent violations of constitutional rights linked to the identified AI systems. The court refused to order the Executive to table AI legislation within the ninety-day timeframe, citing this as an encroachment upon Parliament’s legislative mandate and the established separation of powers.
While acknowledging the serious constitutional issues raised by artificial intelligence, the High Court affirmed that the government has an obligation to complete its regulatory responsibilities within a defined reasonable timeframe. Both parties were ordered to bear their own legal costs. The matter is scheduled to return to the court for further directions on May 13, 2027.
Key points
- The Kenyan High Court has set a six-month deadline for the government to finalize a comprehensive legal and policy framework governing Artificial Intelligence.
- The petitioners had argued that the absence of a binding AI law exposes Kenyan citizens to potential breaches of their constitutional rights.
- The court acknowledged the serious constitutional issues raised by artificial intelligence and the government's obligation to complete its regulatory responsibilities within a defined reasonable timeframe.
