The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released its Peer Reviews of Kenya’s Competition Law and Policy (Peer Reviews), assessing the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) and identifying priority reforms expected to shape enforcement over the coming years. The recommendations, adopted in December 2025, signal a shift towards more deterrent enforcement, improved transparency, stronger governance, and intensified scrutiny in public procurement. Companies undertaking mergers or participating in tenders should anticipate more assertive oversight and higher compliance expectations.
Improving enforcement practices
The OECD’s central enforcement recommendation was to make the CAK’s sanctioning regime deterrent, including:
- More dawn raids, supported by CAK’s new digital forensics lab;
- Higher fines proportionate to turnover and gravity of infringement to enhance deterrence;
- Clear settlement rules, with defined discount caps and a requirement of an admission of liability in most settlement cases; and
- Direct sanctioning powers for CAK when parties ignore information requests or fail to pay fines, thus removing reliance on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
On 31 March 2026, the CAK conducted coordinated dawn raids at the premises of six foam mattress manufacturers as part of an investigation into suspected anti-competitive conduct in the sector. The unannounced inspections reportedly took place across several counties and involved the seizure of electronic devices and business records for forensic analysis. These raids are notable as they appear to reflect the CAK’s prompt implementation of the enforcement recommendations contained in the Peer Reviews.
Implications: Expect tougher enforcement, fewer discount opportunities, and greater operational scrutiny – Companies should ensure strong internal compliance frameworks and dawn‑raid readiness.
Other notable OECD recommendations
-
Institutional framework
To improve credibility and reduce political influence, OECD calls for transparent, merit‑based appointments of CAK Board members and the Director‑General, with mandatory competition law/economics expertise and staggered board appointments to prevent governance gaps.
Implications: If implemented, these recommendations would likely improve institutional governance, reduce potential political influence, and support more consistent, independent and technically grounded decision-making.
-
Improving transparency and CAK performance
OECD urges CAK to have adequate financial and staffing resources for core competition enforcement, at least comparable to peer jurisdictions. Dedicated resources and operational structures for competition enforcement should be kept separate from the CAK’s consumer protection functions. Full, reasoned decisions covering anticompetitive conduct, market studies, and merger reviews should be published on the CAK’s website in a timely manner, rather than decision summaries only.
Implications: Publishing full decisions will improve legal certainty, making it easier to assess enforcement risk and compliance obligations. It will also signal higher standards of economic analysis in CAK decision-making.
-
Tackling bid‑rigging in public procurement
The OECD recommends significantly increasing cooperation between the CAK and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA), including a work plan to enhance referrals of alleged bid rigging and collaboration on detection techniques such as screening tools and audits of past tenders to identify high-risk markets.
Implications: Firms involved in public tenders face significantly heightened detection and enforcement risks.
Additional reforms to watch
- Cartel detection tools: Introduction of cartel screening tools, including economic filters and industry monitoring and stronger whistleblower incentives to enhance confidentiality.
- Digital markets: Amendments to the Competition Act to enhance the CAK’s enforcement activities relating to conduct by digital platforms. In this regard, we note that the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which includes provisions relating to digital market regulations, is scheduled to undergo its first reading at the National Assembly in the month of April 2026.
- Merger control: Periodic review of merger thresholds and fees, structural remedies preferred, and publication of merger notifications for third‑party input.
- Tribunal reform: Requiring relevant competition law and economics expertise among the Competition Tribunal of Kenya (Tribunal) members. Tribunal members should be appointed for the maximum five-year period permitted by law, and adequate funding and training should be provided for both these members and judges of the Commercial and Tax Division of the High Court.
- Regional harmonisation: To streamline obligations across the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC) and African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
- Private enforcement: Encouragement of civil actions to complement public enforcement.
What this means for you
- Expect a more assertive CAK, more dawn raids, higher fines with limitations on discounts, tougher settlement terms including requiring the admission of liability.
- Publishing full decisions will improve legal certainty and develop much needed competition law jurisprudence in Kenya, making it easier to assess enforcement risk and compliance obligations. It will also signal higher standards of economic analysis in CAK decision-making.
- Businesses that supply to government or state-linked entities should expect heightened scrutiny of tendering conduct. CAK’s detection capabilities are set to improve materially.
