Court Removes IMF from KSh 7 Trillion Debt Case, Upholds International Immunity | Dawan Africa

Kenya, 25 June 2026 – The High Court has struck the International Monetary Fund (IMF) out of a high-profile petition challenging the legality of nearly KSh 7 trillion in Kenya’s public debt, ruling that the global lender enjoys immunity from legal proceedings under international agreements adopted by Kenya.

The decision marks a significant development in a case filed by Senator from Busia Okiya Omtatah and other petitioners seeking to have billions of shillings in public debt declared unconstitutional and “odious,” arguing that some loans were allegedly contracted outside the legal framework governing public borrowing.

The court’s ruling effectively shields the IMF from participating in the proceedings, leaving the petitioners to pursue their claims against the Kenyan government and other state institutions named in the case.

The debt petition has attracted national attention because it challenges approximately KSh 6.95 trillion to KSh 7 trillion of Kenya’s public debt accumulated over the past decade, with petitioners alleging that portions of the borrowing were undertaken without proper parliamentary approval and were not linked to identifiable public development projects.

The IMF had earlier asked the court to remove it from the proceedings, arguing that Kenya is bound by international agreements dating back to 1963 that grant the institution immunity from lawsuits in Kenyan courts.

According to court filings, the lender maintained that its Articles of Agreement and Kenya’s adoption of the Bretton Woods framework protect it from judicial action within member states.

In its submissions, the IMF argued that it cannot be held liable for how sovereign governments utilize borrowed funds once loans have been approved and disbursed under agreed frameworks.

The petitioners, however, had opposed the application, arguing that constitutional questions raised in the case warranted the IMF’s continued participation. Senator Omtatah previously contended that immunity should not extend to alleged unconstitutional conduct related to public borrowing.