After Adani, Tata feels the heat: Indian firms under fire in Kenya?

Kenya’s President William Ruto has told Tata Chemicals to end its operations at Lake Magadi, putting one of the country’s oldest foreign-owned industrial businesses at the centre of a political and regulatory confrontation. But Tata’s latest response makes clear that the matter is far from settled. The company says it has submitted the information sought by the government and is waiting for the mining ministry to decide what comes next.

Also Read| Tata Chemicals shares fall 3% after Kenya orders end to operations. Here’s why

The episode follows the dramatic cancellation of Adani’s proposed airport and power-transmission projects in 2024. The troubled histories of many other Indian companies in Kenya such as Essar, Airtel and Mahindra can create an impression of growing Kenyan hostility towards Indian business. The larger context, however, will point to something else. The reality is more complicated when Kenya’s long-running push for greater control over natural resources is taken into account.

What exactly happened to Tata Chemicals?

The immediate dispute concerns Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited (TCML), which operates the soda ash business at Lake Magadi in Kajiado County. The operation dates back more than a century and Tata Chemicals acquired it in 2005 from Britain's Brunner Mond. Soda ash is used in glass, detergents and several industrial applications and Kenya is a significant exporter of the mineral.

The latest confrontation began on July 28, when Mining Cabinet Secretary Hassan Joho ordered TCML to suspend mining operations. The ministry accused the company of breaches relating to mining licences and other regulatory requirements. It also raised questions over royalties, mineral beneficiation, export reporting, community development and local economic participation. The government particularly objected to the absence of what it considered an adequate strategy for processing more of the mineral in Kenya rather than exporting it.

Tata went to the High Court seeking relief. But the court declined to lift the suspension. A ruling dated August 7 noted that the July 28 decision had already taken effect before Tata approached the court and that the company and government had subsequently agreed that the suspension would remain while TCML worked on compliance.

The company has now done exactly that. On August 11, TCML submitted the information, reports and documents requested by the ministry. In its latest stock-exchange filing, Tata says it considers itself fully compliant and is awaiting the ministry's review and further direction.

Ruto had escalated the matter. On September 3, while in Kajiado, the president said Tata should leave Kenya. His complaint was not simply about licensing. He argued that Tata had operated at Magadi for decades without creating enough factories or local industrial activity. Ruto said the government would bring in two companies to establish glass and chemical manufacturing facilities in the area.

Tata's response was carefully worded. It said Magadi remains an integral part of its business and that it respects the Kenyan government while remaining committed to resolving the outstanding matters through legal and regulatory channels.

There is also a long-running legal dispute behind the latest confrontation. Kajiado County had previously sought about 17.4 billion Kenyan shillings from Tata in land rates and royalties. The Court of Appeal favoured Tata and struck down the county's claim.

So Ruto's statement does not by itself settle the future of Magadi. Tata has regulatory submissions pending, existing legal proceedings and contractual and employment obligations. What happens next will depend on decisions by the relevant authorities and potentially the courts.

Also Read| Tata Chemicals issues statement after Kenya govt orders suspension of operations

Before Tata, it was Adani, Essar, Airtel and others

The Tata episode looks more alarming because it follows the extraordinary collapse of Adani's Kenyan projects. In 2024, Adani Airport Holdings proposed to modernise and operate Nairobi's Jomo Kenyatta International Airport under a 30-year concession. The proposed investment was around $1.85 billion.

Kenyan aviation unions opposed the arrangement, fearing job losses and foreign control of a strategic national asset. The Law Society of Kenya and other groups also challenged the proposal.

Adani Energy Solutions separately secured a $736 million, 30-year public-private partnership with Kenya Electricity Transmission Company to develop transmission infrastructure. The High Court suspended that agreement after the Law Society challenged the procurement process and lack of public participation.

The controversy became much bigger after US prosecutors indicted Gautam Adani and other executives in November 2024 over alleged bribery and fraud. Adani Group denied the allegations. Ruto, who had previously defended the Adani projects, cancelled both the airport procurement process and the transmission agreement. The US criminal case against Adani was later been dismissed.

The airport episode also fuelled speculation that China could be behind Indian businesses facing the heat in Kenya. In June this year, Kenya signed a $1.2 billion agreement with China Road and Bridge Corporation to expand JKIA. The project will increase annual passenger capacity from 7.5 million to 22 million. That sequence naturally raises questions about whether Chinese interests benefited from the removal of an Indian competitor. But benefit is not proof of orchestration.

Adani was not the first Indian corporate group to have trouble in Kenya. Essar is an important example. Its yuMobile telecom business, launched in Kenya in 2008, had more than 40 billion Kenyan shillings of investment but failed to become profitable. In 2014, Essar agreed to sell the business for about $120 million, with Airtel acquiring its 2.7 million customers and Safaricom taking its network and other infrastructure.

Essar Energy exited its 50% stake in Kenya Petroleum Refineries Ltd (KPRL) in Mombasa, selling it back to the Kenyan government in 2016 for $5 million and leaving the state with 100% ownership. : The refinery operations were shut down in 2013 after disputes arose over market policies and government support agreements. Essar blamed Kenya for failing to enforce local fuel-buying quotas, while the government questioned Essar's investment choices.

Also Read|‘Are we slaves to others?’: Kenyan President Ruto orders Tata Chemicals to halt operations

Karuturi Global, the Bengaluru-based flower company, suffered a different fate. Its operation was put under receivership in 2014 after it defaulted on a 383 million shilling loan to CfC Stanbic. The company was also involved in disputes over tax and other debts and eventually faced a winding-up process.

Mahindra too has an older Kenyan exit story. Its vehicle business, then operating as Kamson Motors, left the market after a controversial vehicle-supply arrangement involving the Kenya Police and businessman Deepak Kamani went sour. Mahindra returned in 2012 through a different local distribution arrangement.

Even Airtel, which remains Kenya's second-largest mobile operator, has had repeated regulatory battles. Its original licence expired in 2015 and for years it operated using the licence it inherited from yuMobile. Airtel and the Communications Authority fought over billions of shillings in licence fees before reaching an out-of-court arrangement. Only last month did Airtel receive a new 25-year licence, ending a decade of uncertainty.

That history can certainly create the impression that Indian businesses have an unusual problem in Kenya. But the causes are remarkably different from case to case.

India still has a substantial Kenya footprint

What may seem like an Indian retreat from Kenya is difficult to reconcile with what is happening on the ground.

As per the Indian High Commission, nearly 200 Indian companies operate in Kenya across manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, ICT, energy, banking and infrastructure. The list includes Airtel, Tata companies, Mahindra, Godrej, Thermax, UPL, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India and Indian IT companies. More than 200 Indian pharmaceutical companies are registered in Kenya, although many operate primarily through trade rather than manufacturing.

Bilateral trade is also growing. Indian government data shows India-Kenya trade reached $4.31 billion in 2025-26, up from $3.45 billion the previous year.

The most striking counterexample to the an anti-India thesis came after the Adani cancellation itself. In December 2025, Kenya signed a $311 million power-transmission agreement with Africa50 and India's Power Grid Corporation. The 30-year public-private partnership covers two high-voltage transmission lines.

In other words, Kenya cancelled an Adani transmission project and subsequently awarded another major transmission project to an Indian state-owned company. That's what would make it difficult to explain as a blanket policy against Indian businesses.

Kenya's resource nationalism

The Tata case makes more sense when viewed through Kenya's mining history. Kenya has long struggled with the question of how much value foreign mining companies should extract and how much should remain with the state and local communities.

In 2012, London-listed Goldplat, which operated the Kilimapesa gold mine, halted plans to expand the operation because of uncertainty created by new Kenyan ownership rules. Regulations introduced a requirement for foreign-owned mining companies to give Kenyans a 35% stake. Goldplat said the uncertainty was holding up its expansion programme. Its Kenyan operations were later suspended in 2013 as the company dealt with low gold prices, operational problems and the ownership dispute.

The same policy environment alarmed Australia's Base Resources, which was developing the Kwale mineral-sands mine. The company's project became Kenya's largest modern mining operation and eventually produced titanium minerals for export. But Kenya's government had already moved towards greater state participation and local benefit. In 2013, Nairobi imposed a freeze on new mining licences while it reviewed the sector.

Base Resources eventually operated successfully for more than a decade. It paid billions of shillings in taxes and royalties and became Kenya's largest mineral exporter. It finally stopped mining in December 2024 because the commercially viable ore at Kwale had been depleted, not because the Kenyan government expelled it. The closure cost about 1,500 jobs.

The Kwale story is important precisely because it prevents an easy conclusion. Kenya can welcome a foreign mining company, extract substantial tax and royalty revenue from it and still insist on greater local benefits and control over the resource.

Tata now finds itself in that same political environment. Ruto's criticism that Magadi should generate glass and chemical manufacturing locally is essentially a demand for value addition. The government does not want Kenya to remain merely the place where a foreign company extracts a resource and exports it. That is resource nationalism, not necessarily anti-India nationalism.

Chinese companies have faced backlash too

Chinese companies too have repeatedly faced Kenyan protests over jobs, prices, land and business practices. In 2015, residents in Kenya's coastal region protested against China Road and Bridge Corporation, which was constructing the Standard Gauge Railway. Residents complained about compensation for land and the use of expatriate Chinese workers. Protesters threw stones and damaged construction equipment.

There were similar complaints farther along the railway project. In Narok, local residents attacked a CRBC construction site over demands for more jobs. Fourteen Chinese workers were reportedly injured.

Chinese businesses also faced a very different form of backlash in Nairobi in 2023. More than 1,000 Kenyan traders protested against China Square, complaining that its imported goods were roughly half the price of comparable products sold by local traders.

Chinese mining has faced local resistance too. Residents in Migori protested against Chinese involvement in gold mining and demanded the closure of a Chinese operation. Kenyan reporting has also documented disputes involving Chinese mining companies and small-scale miners.

Yet Chinese infrastructure companies remain deeply involved in Kenya. China Road and Bridge Corporation is still the contractor on major infrastructure projects and this year won the JKIA expansion contract. Kenya has also revived the China-backed railway extension after a six-year halt.

So Chinese companies have clearly benefited from their country's enormous economic presence in Kenya. But they have not been insulated from Kenyan public anger.

Tata Chemicals can't be simply told to leave

Tata's case is particularly different from Adani's. Adani's Kenyan projects were still proposed infrastructure concessions when they collapsed amid protests and the US indictment controversy. Tata has an operating business with employees, physical assets, regulatory obligations and a long history in Kenya. It is also already engaged in a court process and has submitted the compliance material demanded by the ministry.

Ruto can make a political declaration that Tata should "pack and go". Turning that declaration into an actual transfer or termination of the Magadi operation is a different matter. The coming months will show whether Nairobi is seeking Tata's departure or using the confrontation to force a new settlement over licences, royalties, local processing and community benefits.

The Magadi dispute fits a pattern visible well beyond Indian business. Kenya wants foreign capital, but increasingly wants foreign investors to accept a bigger Kenyan share of the value generated by Kenyan assets.