REELING IN RIDE-HAILING PLATFORMS: THE CASE AGAINST BOLT

A ride-hailing driver navigates the bustling city streets with a smile, embodying the spirit of modern urban transportation.

On 5 February 2025, thousands of Kenyan ride-hailing drivers woke up to discover that Bolt had quietly and unilaterally removed their vehicles, specifically Toyota Sientas, from the Bolt XL category. There was no notice, no consultation, no explanation. Overnight, they were earning less for the same work. For drivers who had bought these vehicles banking on Bolt’s own categorisation standards, the financial hit was immediate and destabilising.

/

When they tried to find out what had happened, the only answers they received came from automated chatbot responses. These were vague, impersonal, and ultimately irrelevant. No explanation was offered as to why a business decision with such far reaching implications was made behind closed doors.

This case is now before the Human Rights Court in Kenya. 

Why this case matters

This is not just a contract dispute,  it is a constitutional question about how global digital platforms operating in Kenya treat the people whose labour powers them. The petition raises five core issues:

• Unfair administrative action: Bolt’s decision breached Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act by failing to notify, consult, or provide a mechanism for redress before making a decision that directly affected drivers’ incomes.

• Discrimination: The move targeted Toyota Sienta vehicles specifically, while similarly sized models retained XL status. This inconsistency violates the right to equal treatment.

• Access to information: With no proper communication, drivers were denied their constitutional right to clear, timely information—replaced instead by opaque AI-generated replies.

• Unfair labour practices: Drivers had made long-term financial decisions—like car loans—based on Bolt’s categories. The abrupt reclassification destabilised their income and violated the right to fair labour conditions.

• Consumer and youth rights: Beyond drivers, this decision misleads consumers and undermines the gig economy’s promise for Kenya’s youth. Many joined the platform for self-employment, only to face opaque, unpredictable changes.

  
  

Reeling in Ride-Hailing Platforms- The Case Against Bolt and What We Have Asked the Court to do

• Declare Bolt’s conduct unconstitutional.

• Declare that chatbot management at the workplace constitutes unfair administrative action.

• Award compensation (KSh 1 million per affected driver) for violation of rights

• Order Bolt to reinstate Toyota Sientas into the XL category.

• Prevent the company from making similar unilateral changes without proper consultation in future.

  
  

What comes next

On 19th February 2025, the High Court issued conservatory orders blocking Bolt from enforcing the reclassification and requiring reinstatement of the XL category for Toyota Sienta drivers pending the full hearing. On 17th June 2025, the case will proceed for substantive hearing. 

This is a critical moment for platform accountability. This case challenges the structural imbalance between tech companies and the people whose labour makes them profitable. It asks what fairness looks like in a digital economy. It affirms that algorithmic management must not replace procedural justice.

Whether the issue is driver pay, content moderation, or algorithmic bias, the principle is the same: platform decisions must be accountable to people, not just to profit.