Justice William Musyoka
Judge finds flaws in the procurement process ran deeper than the original challenge and affected the entire tender
By Brian Gitonga
The High Court has dismissed challenges by Kenya Power and several security firms seeking to overturn the cancellation of a KSh1.86 billion security services tender, upholding a decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board that nullified the entire procurement process.
Justice W. Musyoka dismissed three consolidated judicial review applications filed by Kenya Power and Lighting Company and the affected security firms, ruling that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the board acted illegally, irrationally, or unfairly when it nullified the tender.
The dispute traces back to a tender Kenya Power advertised on 27 February 2026 for nationwide guarding services under tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26. The contract was divided into two categories — Class A and Class B — and attracted 70 bids.
Following evaluation, several companies were proposed as successful bidders. Under Class A, Ismax Security Services, Lavington Security Services, Spyeagle Security Services, and Sumich Solutions were recommended for a combined 715 guards and a cumulative contract value of KSh677 million. Hounslow Security Limited was among the successful Class B bidders.
Riley Falcon Services Limited, an unsuccessful bidder, challenged the procurement before the PPARB. On 9 July 2026, the board nullified the entire process after identifying a series of fundamental flaws.
Kenya Power and the successful bidders moved to the High Court, arguing that the board had exceeded its mandate. They contended in particular that the board had unlawfully cancelled the Class B awards without affording companies such as Hounslow Security an opportunity to be heard, and had considered matters that were never raised in the original review proceedings.
Justice Musyoka rejected those arguments. He found that once Riley Falcon questioned how its bid had been evaluated, the board was entitled to examine the tender document and the evaluation process in full — and what it found gave it good reason to act.
The judge identified an inherent inconsistency in the tender document itself. While it capped awards at 200 guards per bidder, certain zones required more than that figure, with the Stima Zone specifying as many as 245 guards. Complying with the cap would require splitting the zone, while awarding it in full would breach the limit — an irreconcilable conflict built into the document from the outset. The board also found that Western Region had been split between Sumich and Lavington, and Nairobi Region between Ismax and Spyeagle, breaching the requirement that zones be awarded to a single bidder in full.
The court also noted discrepancies in financial evaluations. Ismax had quoted KSh9,013,200 for the Nairobi Region but was recommended for an award of KSh7,563,200, with no explanation offered for the difference. Ismax was also recommended for 206 guards despite the stated 200-guard ceiling.
On Hounslow’s complaint that it had been condemned without a hearing, Justice Musyoka was direct: the flaws identified were not confined to Class A. They ran through the foundations of the entire procurement.
“The entire tendering process was founded on a single tender document,” the judge said, adding that the inconsistencies identified undermined the integrity of the procurement as a whole.
The court dismissed all three applications, discharged the interim orders that had been in place, and directed each party to bear its own costs.
Similar Posts by The Mt Kenya Times:
- Lesuuda crosses the floor — and takes Samburu with her
- The Rift Valley is not Ruto’s anymore — and DCP is making sure everyone knows it
- Kalonzo and Muturi march into Gachagua country
- Faith and politics travel together for Gachagua in Washington State
- Gachagua: The man who would be kingmaker — or king
About the Author
