East African Court of Justice Moves to Protect Market Access in Landmark Match Masters Ruling

At first glance, this looks like a narrow fiscal issue. In reality, it goes to the heart of how competition within the EAC will be regulated.

The case itself arose from a real commercial pressure point. Match Masters, a long-standing participant in the Tanzanian market, challenged the introduction of excise duty on imported safety matches on the basis that it placed it at an immediate and sustained competitive disadvantage, with a real risk of market exclusion and erosion of goodwill built over more than 25 years. The Court accepted that risk, recognising that imposition of excise duty posed a credible threat to the company’s continued participation in the market.

What stands out is not just the outcome, but the timing. The Court intervened at an interim stage, before full market exclusion had taken hold. That is a meaningful shift. It tells businesses that you do not have to wait until your position is irreversibly damaged before acting. Where a measure begins to distort competition, there is now a credible pathway to stop it in real time.

In practical terms, the bar has shifted. Businesses are not being asked to prove that harm has fully crystallised; it is enough to demonstrate a credible risk of competitive disadvantage. That fundamentally changes how and how early businesses can act, particularly as new fiscal measures emerge across the region, including under Kenya’s and Tanzania’s Finance Bill processes.

Equally important is how the Court approached ‘’harm’’. This was not treated as a narrow tax dispute. The focus was on the commercial reality, the risk to market access, distributor relationships, and a brand presence built over decades. In practical terms, the Court is recognising that once a market position is lost, it is not easily restored. That reframes how businesses should think about risk. The issue is no longer just financial exposure; it is a structural impact within the market.

This has a further implication. As businesses invest in more sustainable production and supply chains, inconsistent or discriminatory fiscal measures risk distorting not just competition but the direction of that transition.

For a long time, the EAC framework has existed alongside domestic fiscal measures, with businesses often navigating both as parallel systems. This decision reinforces that the regional framework is not theoretical. Where a national measure distorts competition within the Common Market, it can be challenged and stopped. We are now seeing a consistent direction from the Court, building on its earlier decision in Kioo Limited v Attorney General of Kenya (KIOO), that it will actively intervene where competition within the Common Market is undermined. That changes the calculus.

The implication is straightforward but significant. Speed now matters. The businesses that will benefit from this shift are those that identify distortions early, track their commercial impact as it happens, and move quickly when conditions change. This is not simply a legal question; it is a market strategy decision.

As new fiscal measures emerge across the region, the key question for businesses is becoming clearer. It is not just whether a measure is lawful under domestic legislation, but whether it places your product at a competitive disadvantage. ALN Kenya | Anjarwalla & Khanna acted for Match Masters Limited.

Should you have any questions regarding the information in this legal alert, please do not hesitate to contact Faith Macharia or Kenneth Njuguna

_________________

Contributors
1. Alice Kamau – Principal Associate
2. Peter Mogoba – Junior Research Associate