President William Ruto’s hopes of raking in more revenue through fuel could be dashed after the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) filed a case challenging the recent increase in fuel prices by the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) and several government agencies.
The petition, filed on May 18, 2026, at the High Court in Nyamira, names EPRA, the National Treasury led by John Mbadi, the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum under Opiyo Wandayi, the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry steered by Lee Kinyanjui, the Attorney General (Dorcas Oduor), the Kenya Bureau of Standards, and the National Standards Council as respondents.
In the case, the lawyers’ body is seeking urgent orders to stop the implementation of the new fuel prices announced on May 14.
The changes saw the price of petrol rise by KSh16.65 per liter, while diesel increased by Ksh46.29 per liter.
LSK says the increases were unlawful and made without proper public participation.
“The Respondents failed to disclose sufficient information to enable the public to interrogate the necessity, legality, and proportionality of the impugned decisions,” LSK stated.
It argues that the government failed to involve Kenyans in decisions that directly affect the cost of transport, food, and other essential services.
LSK Questions Pricing and Levy Fund
The petition also raises concerns over how fuel prices are calculated and how public funds are used in the process.
Also Read: Boost for Kenyan Investors as First Infrastructure Fund Lists on NSE
LSK claims that the State did not provide a clear breakdown of the pricing formula, including taxes, levies, and other charges.
At the center of the dispute is the Petroleum Development Levy Fund, which is meant to cushion consumers during global price shocks.
The lawyers argue that about Ksh5 billion was said to have been used from the fund, but there is no detailed explanation on how the money was applied.
According to the court documents, the failure to disclose this information denies Kenyans their constitutional right of access to information and renders the pricing process opaque.
“The impugned fuel prices impose a grave burden upon consumers and threaten rights under Articles 43 and 46 of the Constitution,” LSK added.
The petition states that decisions of such national importance must be transparent, accountable, and open to public scrutiny.
The LSK further claims that the sharp rise in fuel prices has already triggered increases in transport fares and could lead to higher costs of basic goods.
Transport operators are reported to have raised fares by up to 50 percent following the price changes.
There are also concerns that the situation could lead to protests and disruptions if the government does not address the issues raised.
Challenge Over Fuel Standards
The case also questions a government decision to temporarily relax fuel quality standards.
Also Read: Karua Faces Backlash Over 1997 Fuel Comparison as Government Cites Global Oil Shock
On April 30, authorities allowed higher sulfur levels in fuel for a period of six months, citing supply challenges linked to global events.
LSK argues that the decision was made without sufficient public participation or disclosure of its impact.
It warns that lowering fuel standards could pose risks to public health and the environment if not properly assessed and explained.
In the petition, the lawyers say the move raises serious constitutional issues, including the right to a clean and healthy environment.
They want the court to intervene and stop the changes unless full details are provided and proper consultations are carried out.
The Law Society is asking the High Court to suspend the fuel price increases until the case is heard and determined. It also wants the government to publish a full and detailed breakdown of how fuel prices are arrived at.
Other orders sought include stopping the use of the Petroleum Development Levy Fund without full disclosure and accountability, and compelling the State to explain how the funds have been used.
The petition also seeks orders to halt the temporary changes to fuel standards unless the government produces technical studies and evidence of public participation.
