How much Vodacom paid and what the Safaricom share sale deal entailed

Vodacom's acquisition of a larger stake in Kenyan telecommunications company Safaricom has faced fresh uncertainty after a High Court in Kenya ruled to restore the government's 15% ownership of the company. This ruling, delivered on September 15, 2026, comes less than three months after the transaction was completed, and orders the 15% stake to be returned to the government on behalf of the public.

The dispute centers around a single figure: Ksh204.3 billion, which is the value of Safaricom's 15% stake that was sold to Vodacom at Ksh34 per share. This block comprised approximately 6.01 billion Safaricom shares. Initially, the Kenyan government owned 35% of Safaricom, and the sale was designed to reduce the State's direct holding to 20%.

The transaction, completed on June 30, 2026, was designed to transfer the 15% stake from the government to Vodacom, increasing Vodacom's effective ownership of Safaricom to about 55%. Additionally, Vodacom agreed to pay the Kenyan government Ksh40.2 billion upfront for rights linked to future dividends from the State's remaining 20% Safaricom holding. This means that the government expected to receive approximately Ksh244.5 billion from the two components, totaling a Ksh244.5 billion deal from the government's perspective.

However, the transaction also involved Vodacom acquiring an effective additional 5% interest in Safaricom from Vodafone Group, making Vodacom the sole owner of the investment vehicle. This restructuring increased Vodacom's effective ownership of Safaricom to about 55%. The Kenyan government would retain 20%, while the remaining 25% would continue to be held by other shareholders through the Nairobi Securities Exchange.

The transaction faced legal challenges almost from the beginning, with petitioners questioning issues surrounding public participation, valuation, transparency, and procurement. The court held that the sale was a public policy decision subject to constitutional requirements, including Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution. The court criticized the lack of public participation by the Cabinet and Parliament, as well as the obscurities, misrepresentations, and concealment of material information concerning the transaction.

The transaction is now declared invalid, null, and void by the High Court, marking a significant shift in the ownership structure of Safaricom.