Wilkins Ochoki. By KPC Reporter The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has submitted a constitutional petition at the Nyamira High Court, contesting recent fuel price adjustments that triggered widespread public discontent.
The Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) revealed the price changes on May 15, with the Society describing the increase as illegal, non-transparent, and financially harmful to Kenyan citizens.
During Monday and Tuesday, the nation suffered significant financial losses as public transport operators withheld their services from the roads. Nevertheless, the industrial action was terminated on Tuesday afternoon following negotiations between transporter representatives and government authorities that led to an agreement to resume operations.
Presented by Ochoki & Co. Advocates, the legal action requests the annulment of EPRA’s May 14, 2026 determination that increased Super Petrol by Ksh.16.65 per litre and Diesel by Ksh.46.29 per litre for the May–June pricing period.
The Society contends that the measure contravened multiple constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 10, 35, 43, 46, and 47, which ensure transparency, public engagement, and socio-economic entitlements.
“The decision to enact the contested increases occurred without sufficient public consultation or revelation of the complete pricing methodology,” the petition declares.
Moreover, the LSK asserts that the government’s inability to clarify the utilization of the Ksh.5 billion Petroleum Development Levy Fund violates public financial accountability principles outlined in Articles 201 and 206 of the Constitution.
The legal organization has identified seven respondents, including the Cabinet Secretaries for National Treasury, Energy and Petroleum, and Investments, Trade and Industry, in addition to the Attorney General, Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS), and the National Standards Council (NSC).
The LSK maintains that these offices collectively neglected to maintain transparency and responsibility in fuel pricing and environmental regulations.
Attorney Wilkins Ochoki contends that the situation requires prompt judicial consideration owing to its extensive economic and societal implications.
“The rise occurred shortly after the recent April–May fuel price escalation,” he observes, noting that the depletion of the stabilization fund “has subjected taxpayers to prohibitively elevated and unaffordable living conditions.”
The petition further emphasizes that the temporary sulphur standard exemption declared last monthpermitting fuel with up to 50 mg/kg sulphur contentwas implemented without public engagement or proper information disclosure.
The Society alleges that the exemption jeopardizes Articles 42 and 69 of the Constitution, which protect environmental and health entitlements.
“The dilution of fuel quality standards affecting air quality and public wellbeing cannot be legally maintained without comprehensive disclosure, responsibility, and ecological justification,” the petition states.
Furthermore, the LSK charges the respondents with neglecting to execute the National Energy Security and Resilience Plan instructed by the National Security Council Committee in March 2026, which was designed to counteract the impacts of global oil price instability and supply interruptions connected to the Middle East conflict.
The Society contends that the combined impact of the government’s measures has been “detrimental, inequitable, and incompatible with the State’s obligation to uphold, defend, advance, and realize rights and fundamental liberties.”
It cautions that the non-transparent management of fuel pricing has “placed the nation at risk of mounting public dissatisfaction and demonstrations that could jeopardize peace and civil order.”
The LSK requests Justice Thripsisa Cherere to deem the fuel price determination and sulphur waiver unconstitutional, issue a certiorari order to invalidate EPRA’s May 14 press release, and issue a mandamus requiring the Treasury and EPRA to release the complete pricing analysis within seven days.
The Organization additionally seeks a structural interdict mandating periodic compliance submissions to the court.
The case has been listed for preliminary consideration on May 28, 2026.