Ruto’s Sh56 claim, court battle and fresh protests: Inside Kenya’s tea bonus storm

The tea bonus is the later payment made to small-scale tea growers after their green leaf has been processed and sold. The article calls it the “second tea payment” and reports that the 2025/2026 bonus is under legal challenge. It matters because farmers depend on both payments, and differences in bonus amounts can greatly change their yearly income.

The initial payment is normally linked to the quantity of green leaf delivered to a factory. The bonus comes later and is calculated from the factory’s tea earnings, costs and payment arrangements. In the article, President William Ruto referred to farmers earning an average of Sh56 per kilogramme of green leaf, while growers reported bonus payments as low as Sh12.50.

The dispute concerns how the later payment was calculated and shared. Farmers in several counties compare their payments with about Sh50 in the Mt Kenya region. The High Court has allowed growers in Nyamira and Kisii to begin judicial review proceedings, alleging discrimination and irregular calculations.

The smallest reported payment was Sh12.50 per kilogramme, while farmers in the Mt Kenya region reportedly received about Sh50. That is a difference of Sh37.50 per kilogramme. Compared with Sh12.50, the Sh50 payment was four times higher, making the disparity significant for growers who supply similar agricultural produce.

The article also reports President William Ruto’s claim that small-scale farmers earned an average of Sh56 per kilogramme of green leaf. Compared with Sh12.50, that is a difference of Sh43.50 per kilogramme. The Sh56 figure is about 4.5 times the lowest payment, although the article does not establish that all farmers received those amounts under identical conditions.

These figures have intensified the dispute over tea payments. Growers in Nandi, Kericho, Bomet and Nakuru protested low bonuses, while senators accused KTDA of favouring Mt Kenya factories. The figures also underpin demands for Parliament and the courts to examine pricing and calculations.

The dispute centres on the second tea payment for 2025/2026, commonly called the bonus. Small-scale growers say the amounts varied sharply between regions, with some receiving only Sh12.50 per kilogramme and others about Sh50. They argue that such differences require an explanation, especially when the payments are based on tea produced through related factory systems.

The High Court in Nairobi allowed growers in Nyamira and Kisii to initiate judicial review proceedings. Their case cites alleged discrimination, irregular financial calculations and violations of the Tea Act, 2021. Separately, farmers in Nandi, Kericho, Bomet and Nakuru protested low bonus payments, while senators from the affected region accused KTDA of favouring Mt Kenya factories.

The court has not, in the supplied text, made a final finding that the payments were discriminatory. The proceedings could test whether the calculations complied with the law and whether the payment differences had a lawful basis. Parliament’s Agriculture committee is also expected to examine how tea pricing is conducted.

The Kenya Tea Development Agency, or KTDA, supports the factory network used by small-scale tea growers. In practical terms, this system brings farmers’ green leaf to factories, where it is processed into made tea and sold through established markets. The article places KTDA at the centre of the dispute because it raised green-leaf prices and is accused by senators of favouring some factories.

The core mechanism is a chain. Farmers supply green leaf to factories process it, and the resulting income helps determine payments. The initial green-leaf payment and the later bonus are therefore connected to factory operations and financial calculations. KTDA’s role includes coordinating the smallholder factory system and handling or overseeing payment arrangements, although the supplied article does not detail each administrative step.

The controversy has made KTDA both an institutional actor and a target of scrutiny. Farmers are challenging bonus calculations in court, while Parliament’s Agriculture committee is expected to examine tea pricing. The outcome could clarify how the agency and factories should calculate and distribute returns.

If courts or Parliament find that bonus calculations were discriminatory, affected farmers could seek corrected payments or a fairer formula. The precise remedy would depend on the court or Parliament, and the supplied article does not specify one. Still, a finding could increase pressure to review past calculations and explain why farmers received sharply different amounts.

Tea factories could face major financial consequences. They might need to recalculate bonuses, find money for additional payments or change how they report factory earnings. The sector already carries substantial borrowing: factories listed in a loan schedule had outstanding balances of Sh34.05 billion at the end of 2025. Corrective payments could therefore strain factories’ finances, even as farmers demand relief.

The political effects could extend beyond courtrooms. Senators from affected regions have already accused KTDA of favouring Mt Kenya factories. A confirmed disparity could deepen regional tensions and increase parliamentary pressure for oversight, transparency and changes to Kenya’s tea-pricing system. These are possible implications, not findings reported in the article.

Some KTDA factories borrowed billions to make bonus payments on time. This reflects a timing problem: farmers need payment after supplying tea, but factories may receive proceeds from processed tea later. Borrowing supplies cash immediately, allowing factories to pay bonuses even when their own sales income has not yet arrived.

The mechanism creates a repayment obligation. A factory must later use revenue from tea sales to service loans, pay interest and reduce the principal. That leaves less money available for future bonuses, farm services or factory operations. The article reports that factories listed in the loan schedule owed Sh34.05 billion at the end of 2025, showing the scale of the accumulated liability.

Farmers can therefore carry the debt indirectly. Even if they receive a bonus today, future payments may be reduced by loan costs or delayed if factories struggle financially. The article does not state the exact repayment terms or how each factory allocates debt. It does show why bonus financing has become part of the wider tea-sector dispute.

Kenya’s tea-pricing system connects a farmer’s green-leaf delivery to the value of processed tea. Farmers first supply leaf to a factory and receive an initial payment based mainly on delivered quantity. The factory then processes the leaf and sells the made tea in domestic or international markets. The eventual return can support a later bonus.

The key mechanism is revenue sharing after processing. Sale proceeds must be collected and factory costs, including processing, administration and financing, must be accounted for before the remaining value is distributed. A factory’s sales results and financial calculations can therefore affect the second payment. The supplied article does not provide the precise formula, market channels or cost schedule.

This explains why Parliament’s Agriculture committee is expected to examine how tea pricing is conducted. Farmers are questioning whether the calculations fairly convert market returns into bonuses. The reported figures—Sh12.50 in some cases, about Sh50 in Mt Kenya and Ruto’s Sh56 average—show why transparency in that chain matters.