Court keeps Uber Kenya in rider deactivation case

Kenya’s High Court has rejected Uber Kenya’s attempt to exit a lawsuit brought by 37 motorcycle riders who say their accounts were deactivated without adequate explanations, cutting off their earnings and leaving them struggling to repay loans for electric motorcycles.

Justice David Mburu ruled that Uber Kenya must remain a party to the proceedings because its role in the disputed account suspensions requires examination at a substantive hearing. The decision does not establish that the company violated the riders’ rights, but it allows the case to proceed with the Kenyan entity still involved.

The riders allege that they were locked out of the platform without notice, reasons or access to the evidence behind the decisions. Their petition invokes constitutional protections for fair administrative action, access to information and consumer rights, arguing that the suspensions deprived them of their livelihood.

Filed in March 2026, the petition also highlights the financial consequences of losing access to a platform used to generate income. The riders say they financed electric motorcycles through Greenwheels Electric Mobility Solutions Limited and struggled to meet repayments after their accounts were suspended. They further allege that Greenwheels repossessed motorcycles following the deactivations.

Why 37 motorcycle riders took Uber to court

The riders say repeated requests for explanations went unanswered, including a formal demand dated December 22, 2025. They sought information about why their accounts had been deactivated, the alleged misconduct behind the decisions and the evidence used to justify the suspensions.

Their petition challenges the process through which they lost access to the platform, raising questions about whether the decisions complied with constitutional requirements for fairness and access to information. The dispute also concerns what avenues workers have to challenge decisions that prevent them from earning through a digital service.

The financial stakes extend beyond lost fares. Riders who finance motorcycles for commercial use must continue meeting their loan obligations even when they cannot earn through the platform. The affected riders say the suspensions left them facing financial hardship and the risk of losing the vehicles they relied on to generate income.

Uber Kenya disputes responsibility for those losses, arguing that any repossessions arose from separate contractual arrangements between Greenwheels and the affected riders. The court has not determined liability for the alleged financial harm.

Uber Kenya disputes responsibility for account suspensions

Uber Kenya asked the court to remove it from the proceedings, arguing that Uber B.V., a company incorporated in the Netherlands, owns and operates the digital platform. It said its local activities were limited to promoting the service, assisting users with registration and providing general support, rather than managing rider accounts or deciding suspensions.

The company maintained that it did not investigate rider conduct, make the disputed deactivation decisions or hold the information the petitioners were seeking. It argued that it could not be required to produce information or comply with orders concerning accounts outside its control.

Uber Kenya also disputed the suggestion that it was a subsidiary of Uber B.V. It explained that its shareholders are Uber International Holdings B.V. and Uber International B.V., arguing that common shareholding does not justify disregarding separate corporate identities.

The riders challenged that position, arguing that Uber Kenya facilitates the platform’s operations in the country and should not be permitted to disclaim responsibility for decisions affecting local users. They pointed to an intercompany services agreement dated November 1, 2013, as relevant to determining the Kenyan company’s role.

Uber Kenya said the agreement expressly excluded an agency, partnership or joint venture. The riders countered that the company’s actual conduct should also be considered when determining whether it had obligations arising from its involvement in local operations.

Court says Uber Kenya’s role requires examination

Justice Mburu agreed that corporate links and common shareholding do not automatically make one company responsible for another’s decisions. He also acknowledged that providing promotional or support services does not, by itself, establish liability for every action undertaken by Uber B.V.

However, the judge found that Uber Kenya had not demonstrated that its participation was wholly unnecessary or that the allegations against it were so unsustainable that it should be removed before a substantive hearing.

The court said the contractual disclaimer of agency did not, by itself, resolve whether Uber Kenya’s actual conduct created an independent legal obligation. Evidence would be needed to determine whether the company participated in account decisions, acted as an agent or had access to information relevant to the riders’ claims.

The ruling leaves those questions for determination under the applicable law. Uber Kenya’s continued participation does not amount to a finding that it controlled the deactivations or violated the riders’ constitutional rights.

The judge also considered an earlier case involving Kanuri Limited and 33 others, in which the High Court declined to remove Uber Kenya from proceedings. Communications issued by the Kenyan company on behalf of Uber B.V. were considered relevant to the question of agency in that dispute.

Justice Mburu noted that the earlier decision did not mean Uber Kenya must remain a party in every case involving the application. The circumstances and evidence in each dispute must be assessed on their own merits.

The court dismissed Uber Kenya’s application and ordered that it remain a party to the petition, which is scheduled for mention on December 1, 2026.

Electric motorcycle financing raises the financial stakes

The dispute comes against a backdrop of growing interest in electric motorcycles for commercial transport in Kenya. Financing arrangements allow riders to acquire vehicles without paying the full purchase price upfront, but borrowers must generate enough income to cover repayments alongside operating expenses.

TechTrendsKE’s reporting on electric motorcycle economics has examined how financing costs, maintenance and battery access affect the amount riders retain from their earnings. Even where electric motorcycles offer potential savings on running costs, the economics depend on the terms of acquisition and the ability to keep the vehicles in productive use.

For riders who depend on a ride-hailing platform for trips, account suspension can interrupt the revenue needed to repay a financed motorcycle. If repayments fall behind, repossession can remove the asset used to earn that income, leaving the borrower with a more difficult financial position.

That is the risk at the centre of the riders’ allegations. They say losing platform access left them unable to earn while their financing obligations continued, although Uber Kenya maintains that the loan arrangements and any resulting repossessions are separate from its role in operating the service.

The case brings into focus the relationship between digital platforms and asset financing. Access to customers can be essential to a rider’s ability to service a loan, making the process used to suspend an account consequential for both immediate earnings and longer-term financial commitments.

European Uber fine adds context to the dispute

The Kenyan proceedings come amid wider scrutiny of how ride-hailing platforms make decisions affecting drivers. In August 2026, the Dutch Data Protection Authority imposed an €824.99 million fine on Uber over automated driver deactivations and inadequate information about profiling, in a decision concerning practices between 2018 and 2022.

The regulator found that Uber had used automated systems in decisions affecting drivers and had not adequately informed them about the processing involved. The decision followed complaints by French drivers. Uber disputed the findings and said it intended to appeal.

The European case raises questions about transparency and safeguards when automated decisions have significant consequences for workers. Article 22 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation addresses certain decisions based solely on automated processing that produce legal or similarly significant effects, with safeguards applying under specified conditions.

The European proceedings and the Kenyan petition involve different legal questions. The Dutch decision concerned compliance with European data protection rules, while the Kenyan case concerns Uber Kenya’s role in the disputed deactivations and the riders’ constitutional claims.

The European findings do not establish that the 37 Kenyan riders were suspended by an automated system or that Uber Kenya made the decisions. The Kenyan court must assess the riders’ claims against the evidence and the applicable law.

The immediate dispute is whether Uber Kenya has a legally relevant role in the account suspensions and whether the riders can establish that their rights were violated. With the company remaining a party to the petition, those questions will proceed to further court consideration.

Go to TECHTRENDSKE.co.ke for more tech and business news from the African continent and across the world.

Follow us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and Facebook, or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to ensure you don’t miss out on any future updates. Send tips to editorial@techtrendsmedia.co.ke