Effectiveness of Competition Law Sanctions- Kenya

This chapter examines the competition sanctions regime in Kenya. Competition sanctions and enforcement tools adopted by the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) have evolved, in what has been a historical shift. During its earlier years of operation, CAK required undertakings found to have engaged in restrictive trade practices to undertake advocacy initiatives, or cease and desist from future conduct. However, in the recent past CAK has continually imposed punitive administrative fines, increasing them steadily. In most cases, undertakings have preferred to enter into a settlement agreement with CAK. At the time of writing , no cartel case had been prosecuted in Kenya and no administrative fines had been imposed on an individual. To enhance detection of cartel conduct, CAK has adopted novel enforcement tools such as the informant reward scheme and the leniency program whose effectiveness is yet to be evaluated. The biggest challenge facing the Kenyan competition sanctioning regime is a low level of competition culture and a lack of public awareness, making CAK over-reliant on its own investigations and market inquiries in detecting cartel conduct. By taking stock of the Kenyan competition regime, this chapter provides understanding of the appropriate sanctions and remedies adopted by young and emerging competition agencies in developing countries.     «

This chapter examines the competition sanctions regime in Kenya. Competition sanctions and enforcement tools adopted by the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) have evolved, in what has been a historical shift. During its earlier years of operation, CAK required undertakings found to have engaged in restrictive trade practices to undertake advocacy initiatives, or cease and desist from future conduct. However, in the recent past CAK has continually imposed punitive administrative fines, increas...     »