Court upholds cancellation of Kenya Power security tender

The High Court in Nairobi has upheld a decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) to cancel a security services tender awarded by the Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC).

In his judgment, Justice William Musyoka rejected KPLC’s argument that the board lacked jurisdiction to hear separate complaints filed by security companies challenging the tender.

The judge found no evidence that the PPARB had acted illegally, exceeded its jurisdiction, or reached an irrational or unreasonable decision. He also found that the board had followed a fair procedure in determining the complaints.

“It has not been established that the PPARB acted illegally or in excess of its jurisdiction, or its decision was irrational or unreasonable, or it adopted a procedure, in the lead-up to the determination of the matter before it, which was unfair,” Judge Musyoka said.

He consequently dismissed the applications and discharged the temporary and interim orders that had been issued in the various cases.

In the ruling, Justice Musyoka observed that the board was right to find that the inconsistencies in the tender document boiled down to the integrity of the whole process. “An adverse finding on the flaws identified in the said document naturally affected the entire process, regardless of the class of the award,” the judge said, adding that the process was faulty as it stemmed from the tender document itself.

KPLC moved to the High Court after the PPARB cancelled the procurement decision and ordered it to go back to the drawing board. KPLC argued that the board introduced external requirements which it allegedly used to order the cancellation of the tender.

According to Kenya Power, the multi-million shillings deal comprised two categories, A and B, where it received bids from 70 interested companies.

After the first evaluation, 31 companies were dropped for unresponsiveness, while another one was later disqualified for failing to meet the test.

Out of the remaining 30 companies that had progressed to the financial evaluation, only four- Ismax, Lavington, Spyeagle, and Sumich were awarded the class A tender.

In class B, 15 companies out of 23 that had undergone the financial stage were awarded.

Aggrieved by the decision, one of the companies that had not been granted the tender in class B, Riley Falcon, moved to the PPARB. It successfully argued its grievances, and on July 9, 2026, the board agreed with it, thus overturning the tender award.

But Hounslow, a company that had also applied for the tender, appealed the decision, arguing that Riley had participated in class A and not B; hence, the board should not have interfered with the tender.  Ismax, Spyeagle and Sumich also separately challenged the board. They backed Hounslow’s argument that PPARB had no powers to scrutinise the tenders in category B.

KPLC also filed its own case. It argued that the board had acted irrationally and had cancelled the tender in category B without supporting reasons.

The corporation further argued that PPARB dismissed Riley’s claims but went ahead to annul the entire process on other grounds, which had not been pleaded.

KPLC further said that it had already awarded the tender to the successful companies.

In its response, PPARB argued that it was bound to look at the entire document to determine whether the entire bid was above board or not.

The Board added that the successful bidders in class B could not ride on their right to be heard to sustain an unlawful process.

According to PPARB, the law requires it to safeguard procurement legality. It asserted that the mandatory sections in the tender document were contradictory, which rendered the entire process null and void for lack of a clear, objective and consistent framework.

It further argued that the tender could not lawfully proceed with a faulty document.

Justice Musyoka agreed with the board.

He ruled that the board was not reviewing the tendering process in isolation. Instead, he found that it compared the process and the tender document to determine if it was above board or not.

“The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board considered the tender document, as against the evaluation report, with respect to the evaluation of the bid by Riley Falcon and the other bids, to arrive at the finding that the tender document had the principal weakness, which tainted the entire evaluation process,” he said.

The Judge added that while the document had a mandatory number of guards, there was no explanation of the method used to adopt a revision. He pointed out, for example, that Ismax had quoted Sh9.03 million for the Nairobi region, while the evaluation committee recommended it for Sh7.5 million without an explanation or basis for that.

“The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board did not purport to audit the entire procurement process, rather the issue raised, around the evaluation, necessitated an examination of the entire evaluation exercise, to determine whether or not the bid by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited had been subjected to a proper evaluation, based on the criteria set out in the tender document, and in compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and Article 227 of the Constitution,” he ruled.