CA cracks down on landlords blocking internet providers in estates
CAK Director-General David Kemei warned that such conduct is unlawful under the Competition Act (CAP 504), which prohibits any actions that restrict or distort competition.
The Competition Authority of Kenya (CA) has raised alarm over anti-competitive practices by landlords and estate managers who are locking out internet service providers (ISPs) from residential estates, denying residents the freedom to choose their preferred providers.
In a public notice issued on Tuesday, CA revealed it had received numerous complaints from consumers and confirmed through investigations that some estates had entered into exclusive contracts with specific ISPs.
More To Read
- Kenya expands fibre network to 13,590km in 2025, boosting digital access and govt services
- Safaricom, CA deny role in Ojwang’s arrest, reject claims of sharing mobile tracking data
- Millions affected as poor mobile phone network quality persists in over 30 counties, CA report reveals
- New Bill proposes metered internet billing and mandatory age verification for online access
- Telkom on regulator’s red list after failing quality test, Airtel improves service score
- Boost for small businesses as Safaricom revamps ‘Fuliza’ and ‘Pochi’ with credit offer
These deals blocked competing providers from accessing the estates, limiting options for residents and distorting fair market competition.
CA Director-General David Kemei warned that such conduct is unlawful under the Competition Act (CAP 504), which prohibits any actions that restrict or distort competition.
He said exclusive ISP contracts deny consumers the right to choose, often resulting in inflated prices and unreliable services.
“These exclusive contracts between ISPs and estate managers go against both the spirit of the Constitution and the law,” said CAK’s Director of Enforcement.
“This kind of market control is like creating mini-monopolies in residential areas,” said a consumer rights advocate who welcomed CA’s intervention.
“It’s the residents who suffer in the end, especially when services break down and there are no alternatives.”
The Authority cited Section 21(1) of the Act, which bars any behaviour that prevents or distorts competition. Section 21(3)(e) prohibits attempts to limit market access, while Section 21(3)(f) forbids giving unfair or unequal treatment to similar business partners in a way that puts one at a disadvantage.
CA has now directed all developers, landlords, estate managers, and ISPs involved in such practices to immediately terminate the restrictive agreements and open access to all service providers.
Failure to comply could result in severe penalties, including fines of up to 10 per cent of a company’s gross revenue from the previous year.
In more serious cases, violators may be prosecuted and face fines of up to Sh10 million, a jail term of up to five years, or both.
CA emphasised that residents suffer the most when such exclusivity deals result in service breakdowns and no alternative options are available. It also called on consumers to report any instances where they are unfairly blocked from choosing their internet providers.
“We all benefit from competition: better services, lower prices, and greater innovation,” the Authority said. “No one should be denied that simply because of where they live.”
Top Stories Today
