The company’s lawyers warned that halting the process could have serious consequences for the market.
They said stopping the sale midway would create confusion and could shake investor confidence, not just in Safaricom but in the wider economy.
According to them, such a move might send the wrong message to both local and international investors who are watching how Kenya handles business and investment matters.
Safaricom also pointed out that the case before the court is mainly a commercial dispute.
It argued that such matters are best handled through existing regulatory bodies that are designed to deal with business-related concerns.
The firm maintained that these institutions are capable of ensuring fairness and transparency without the need for court intervention at this point.
One of the lawyers representing Safaricom, Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia, told the court that the investors involved in the deal are not outsiders with hidden motives.
He described them as legitimate stakeholders who have a right to participate in the transaction.
Another lawyer, Paul Muite Musangi, questioned claims that the investors pose any threat, saying no clear evidence had been presented to support such fears.
“How do they suddenly come under threat now?” Musangi asked in court. “You have not been told where the threats are from.” His remarks were aimed at challenging the arguments made by those opposing the sale.
Safaricom also addressed concerns that the transaction could affect its identity as a Kenyan company.
The firm strongly rejected this idea, insisting that it will remain rooted in Kenya regardless of changes in shareholding.
It emphasized that its operations, workforce, and services will continue to serve Kenyans as they always have.
The case has drawn public interest, with some people raising concerns about the impact of selling government shares in a major company.
Others, however, see the move as part of normal business activity that could attract more investment and support growth.