REFORMS

AFA seeks to challenge suspended Tea Act sections

Agriculture and Food Authority says suspension of sections of Act undermines its functions

In Summary

• Agriculture and Food Authority wants to be enjoined in case challenging sections of Tea Act. Sections have been suspended by court.

• AFA says suspension of has crippled its functions and hurts the tea value chain.

Farmers picking tea in Kangaita village, Nyeri county.
TEA PLANTATION: Farmers picking tea in Kangaita village, Nyeri county.
Image: FILE

More than 50 tea factories are opposing efforts by the by Agriculture and Food Authority to join a case challenging sections of the Tea Act.

The challenged sections have since been suspended by the court.

The 50 factories led by Mungania Tea Factory argue that since there are no board members to authorise the AFA to oppose the case, its application should be dismissed.

AFA says the suspension of sections of the law has crippled its statutory functions and therefore it wants to be a party to the case to tell its side of the story.

The AFA says the suspension of a section has affected all  stakeholders in the tea value chain and has severely interfered with and hampered its statutory functions.

The authority said there will be no registration of the primary producers of tea for protection by the board, after the suspension of Section 21(2) of the Tea Act on registration of small-scale and medium-size tea growers.

It said the suspension of Section 22 of the Act interferes with the democratic election of the tea factory board of directors. It said that should be based on a system of one grower, one vote and gender equity in constitution of board of directors

The court was told that since its establishment in 2014, the Board of AFA has never been constituted.

The High Court suspended sections of the Tea Act after 15 companies under Kenya Tea Growers Association and East African Tea Trade Association challenged them, arguing that they were unconstitutional. 

The sections challenged include Section 34(4), which is said to be silent on the percentage of payments to be borne by the tea buyers and tea factories to pay the brokerage commission. The sections cap the brokerage fees but fail to indicate how the fees will be paid, according to EATTA.

The association wants the court to interpret and determine whether Sections 5(l), 32(3)(b), 32(4), 34(3)(b), 34(4)(5)(6), 36(1),48 (1) and 53 of the Tea Act are constitutional.

The law, which came into effect on January 11, says all teas should be offered at the tea auction floor. 

(Edited by V. Graham)

 

WATCH: The latest videos from the Star