A Kenyan court has rejected a legal bid to ban Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder, allowing the American consumer health giant to continue selling its talc-based products in the East African market.
The High Court dismissed a suit filed by a plaintiff identified as Bikeri, who had named Johnson & Johnson entities, the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) — the country’s national standards and quality regulator — the Public Health Standards Board, and the Ministry of Health as defendants. The grounds on which Bikeri sought the ban were not disclosed in court documents made available.
The ruling preserves Johnson & Johnson’s commercial position in Kenya at a time when the company faces sustained global scrutiny over the safety of talc-based products. Johnson & Johnson announced in 2023 that it would discontinue its talc-based baby powder globally, having already withdrawn it from North American markets in 2020, citing what it described as misinformation and litigation pressure rather than safety concerns.
The product has, however, remained available in a number of markets.
Talc litigation against Johnson & Johnson has been extensive in the United States, where tens of thousands of plaintiffs have alleged that the company’s baby powder contained asbestos and caused cancer — claims the company has consistently denied.
The company has pursued a controversial legal strategy involving subsidiary bankruptcies in an attempt to consolidate and limit its liability exposure.
The Kenyan case reflects a broader, if still nascent, trend of consumer and public health litigation reaching African courts on product safety grounds.
Whether similar proceedings are pending in other African jurisdictions — including markets such as Nigeria, South Africa, or Ghana, where Johnson & Johnson also distributes consumer health products — is not established in available court records.
KEBS, as a named defendant, plays a central role in determining which products meet the standards required for sale in Kenya. Its inclusion in the suit suggests the plaintiff may have challenged not only the company’s conduct but also the adequacy of regulatory oversight of talc products in the Kenyan market.
The ruling is a procedural and commercial win for Johnson & Johnson as it continues to manage its talc liability globally, and signals that Kenyan courts are not yet prepared to impose precautionary bans on products that remain on the market under existing regulatory approvals.
