Kenya’s government changed betting and gaming excise duty and withholding tax from 1 July 2025, according to the reported announcement. Excise duty fell from 15% of wagers or stakes to 5% of wallet deposits, while withholding tax fell from 20% of net winnings to 5% of withdrawals.
Operators must apply the revised tax bases and rates to betting and gaming activity in Kenya.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
It was reported that Uganda removed the exemption protecting land-based casinos from a 15% withholding tax on customer winnings. Parliament approved the proposed amendment to bring physical venues into line with online gambling.
The Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority said a 5% withholding tax now applies to net winnings on all online platforms licensed in Lagos. Operators must deduct the levy when paying winnings and transfer it to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service; the measure has taken effect.
Lagos State has begun deducting 5% withholding tax from qualifying net winnings paid through licensed gaming platforms, the state government said. Operators must deduct the tax at payout and remit it to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service; players must provide their National Identification Number under KYC requirements.
Zimbabwe’s Finance Act introduced new gambling taxes from 1 January 2026, requiring betting firms, casinos and lottery providers to withhold 25% of players’ winnings. The rules also set a 20% levy on operators’ gross takings, with monthly returns due by the fifth and payments by the tenth; ZIMRA said the first returns were due on 5 January 2026.
Italy’s Court of Cassation ruled on 13 October 2026 that a gaming company’s appeal over entertainment duty for 2006 was inadmissible. The court said the company had not identified the payment notice’s service date in its appeal and could not remedy that omission by submitting the notice with its closing brief.
Italy's Court of Cassation ruled on 13 October 2026 that an appeal by a gaming company over entertainment duty for 2006 was inadmissible, according to an ordinance issued that day. The court found that the company had not identified in its appeal the date on which a payment notice had been served, and that it could not remedy that omission by producing the notice's service report only with its closing brief.