High Court Rules in Favor of CS Duale-Linked Firm in KSh 1.3B KRA Tender Dispute

In a landmark ruling delivered on April 11, 2025, the Court of Appeal has directed the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) to award a KSh 1.182 billion security services tender to Vickers Security Services Limited, a company reportedly linked to Cabinet Secretary for Health Aden Duale, a close ally of President William Ruto.

The three-judge bench overturned an earlier decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) that had nullified KRA’s original intention to award the contract to Vickers and instead directed it be given to Hatari Security Guards Limited at a higher cost of KSh 1.382 billion.

Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Kathurima M’Inoti, and Lydia Achode ruled that the PPARB had exceeded its statutory powers and violated constitutional principles by failing to accord Vickers and KRA a fair hearing before disqualifying Vickers’ bid.

“The procurement of goods and services by a public entity is not to be conducted arbitrarily and opaquely,” the judges stated in their ruling, citing Article 227 of the Constitution, which demands transparency, equity, and accountability in public procurement.

The dispute originated from a tender issued by KRA in August 2024 for security and safety services over three years, divided into three lots. Following evaluation, KRA awarded Lot 1 (Guarding Services) to Vickers, whose bid was approximately KSh 200 million lower than Hatari’s.

Hatari challenged the award, alleging that Vickers had failed to attend mandatory pre-tender site visits at six of the 162 designated locations. However, both 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 PPARB agreed that Hatari’s complaint lacked merit, it introduced new grounds unrelated to Hatari’s application to disqualify Vickers, citing alleged anomalies in site visit certificates and missing details in price schedules.

The Court of Appeal criticized the Board’s approach, noting that Hatari, the eventual beneficiary, had allegedly committed the same infractions used to disqualify Vickers. The judges questioned how the Board could uphold cost-effectiveness 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.”

The Court emphasized the need for holistic constitutional interpretation, especially when fundamental rights like the right to a fair hearing are at stake. It issued an order quashing PPARB’s decision and compelling KRA to award Lot 1 to Vickers as originally intended.

Vickers and KRA were also awarded costs in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The ruling represents a significant victory for Vickers Security Services Limited amid ongoing scrutiny of government procurement processes.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​