Pevans East Africa Limited v Betting Control & Licensing Board & 2 others

Relying on Section 5(2) of the Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act and the preamble to the Act, the Court held the Board may require such declarations or further information as it deems necessary. The Act does not define what investigations are necessary, but proof of tax payment falls squarely within the Act's purpose of imposing and recovering tax on betting and gaming. The Court associated itself with the trial judge's findings and saw no reason to interfere.

The petition was filed on 27th June 2019 and reasons were served on 1st July 2019, four days later. The Court, adopting the trial judge's reasoning, held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the delay prejudiced its right to petition. The appellant had delayed providing required information and was, in the Court's view, the author of its own misfortunes. The letter of 1st July 2019 cited pending investigations into compliance with set licensing conditions as the reason.

Having found that the Board did provide reasons for the refusal, the Court saw no basis to disturb the judge's finding. The judge had reasoned that where reasons involve intelligence reports and security investigations, such information falls within the permitted exceptions under section 6 of the Act, and the question of sufficiency depends on the nature of the exemption claimed.

The Court adopted the definition of discrimination in Peter K. Waweru v Republic and the distinction between discrimination and unfair discrimination in Nyarangi v Attorney General, noting that not all distinctions are unlawful; distinctions are legitimate if they pursue a legitimate aim and are reasonable. The mere confirmation that some licences were renewed and others not, without more, did not amount to discrimination, and no evidence of unfair differential treatment was tendered.