The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB), directing the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) to award a KSh 1.382 billion tender to Hatari Security Guards Limited for the provision of security and safety services.
The landmark ruling follows a successful appeal by Vickers Security Services Limited, a company reportedly linked to Cabinet Secretary for Health Aden Duale, a close ally of President William Ruto. Vickers accused PPARB of unlawfully nullifying the original tender award without affording Vickers or KRA a fair hearing.
The dispute arose from a tender issued by KRA on 24 August 2024, Tender No. KRA/HQS/NCB-002/2024-2025, inviting bids for security and safety services over three years across three lots: Guarding Services (Lot 1), Leasing of Security Equipment (Lot 2), and Alarm Back-up Services (Lot 3). Following a multi-stage evaluation process, KRA awarded Lot 1 to Vickers, Lot 2 to Biometric Technology Ltd, and Lot 3 to Hatari.
Only the bids from Vickers and Hatari were found responsive for Lot 1, with Vickers emerging as the lowest bidder at KSh 1.182 billion, KSh 200 million below Hatari’s KSh 1.382 billion offer.
On 17 December 2024, Hatari lodged a request for review with PPARB, contending that Vickers failed to meet a mandatory requirement to attend pre-tender site visits at six of the 162 designated locations. As evidence, Hatari cited the absence of Vickers representatives’ signatures in occurrence books or site registers.
Vickers and KRA maintained that the tender documents only required site visit registers to be stamped by a KRA officer or local government representative, a requirement Vickers had satisfied. Although the Board agreed that Hatari’s complaint lacked merit, it acted on its own initiative, introducing and relying on new grounds unrelated to Hatari’s application to disqualify Vickers.
The Board cited alleged anomalies in Vickers’ site visit certificates and missing details in price schedules, ultimately cancelling KRA’s intention to award Lot 1 to Vickers and directing that it be awarded to Hatari.
In a strongly worded judgment delivered on 11 April 2025, Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Kathurima M’Inoti, and Lydia Achode held that the Board had exceeded its statutory powers and violated the Constitution by failing to accord Vickers and KRA a fair hearing before disqualifying the bid.
“The procurement of goods and services by a public entity is not to be conducted arbitrarily and opaquely,” the judges held, citing Article 227 of the Constitution, which demands transparency, equity, and accountability in public procurement. They likened these principles to the national values under Article 10, including participation, equality, integrity, and the rule of law.
The judges further criticized the Board’s double standards, noting that Hatari, the eventual beneficiary, had allegedly committed the same infractions it had used to disqualify Vickers. They questioned how the Board could uphold cost-effectiveness and transparency while awarding the tender to a firm with a higher bid and similar documentation irregularities.
“If the Board has such roving power to review procurements as it has claimed,” the judges said, “then nothing could stop it from inquiring whether Hatari had itself complied with what the Board was penalizing Vickers for.”
In condemning the Board’s decision, the Court of Appeal emphasized the need for holistic, not selective, constitutional interpretation, especially when fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1), are at stake. “Ultimately, we find merit in the consolidated appeal and allow the same,” the ruling stated. “The decision of the High Court dated 21 February 2025 is hereby set aside.”
The Court replaced the lower court’s judgment with an order of certiorari, quashing PPARB’s decision of 6 January 2025, and issued a mandamus compelling KRA to award Lot 1 of the tender to Vickers, as originally intended in its letter dated 2 December 2024. Vickers and KRA were also awarded costs in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
