An activist moved to the High Court seeking an independent investigation into a Kenya Power tender, raising questions over the procurement process and whether it complied with legal and constitutional requirements.
Francis Awino filed the petition in the public interest concerning Tender No. KP1/9A.2/OT/001/PJT/25-26, which involved the provision of labour and transport construction services for vegetation management.
According to the petition, the tender attracted 346 submissions, 20 of which were later withdrawn.
Following preliminary, technical and financial evaluations, the Evaluation Committee recommended 91 bidders for contracts, comprising nine regional awards and 82 Distribution Area awards.
Awino argues that the scale of the procurement, coupled with its connection to the operations of a public-interest electricity utility, makes the matter one of significant public concern.
The petition follows an earlier challenge to the tender before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) by Panthers Power Technologies Limited.
The company filed PPARB Application No. 99 of 2026 on June 30, 2026, challenging various aspects of the procurement, including the validity of the tender, the date and procedure used to open it, notification of intended awards, disclosure of winning bid prices and the qualifications and licences of successful bidders.
It also raised concerns about possible relationships between some of the companies recommended for awards and the use of a Cost Handbook during the financial evaluation.
The Board, however, did not determine the complaints on their merits.
Instead, it upheld a preliminary objection that Panthers Power Technologies had failed to join the 91 successful tenderers as parties to the proceedings, as required under Section 170(c) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
The Board consequently struck out the application for want of jurisdiction.
Awino argues that the decision did not amount to a finding that the procurement was lawful, nor did it determine that the allegations raised by Panthers Power Technologies were false.
He is now asking the High Court to allow the relevant oversight agencies to independently examine the procurement process.
One of the issues raised in the petition is the validity period of the tender.
Awino says Kenya Power informed the PPARB that the tender had a validity period of 180 days, with the period affected by earlier proceedings.
He wants investigators to establish when the original validity period commenced, when it was due to expire, whether it was extended, who authorised any extensions and how bidders were notified.
The petitioner is also seeking records of emails, text messages and other electronic communications allegedly used to communicate any extensions to bidders.
The petition further questions changes to the tender-opening date.
According to documents cited in the petition, the deadline was changed before the tender was eventually opened on December 10, 2025, after an earlier date of December 3.
Awino wants investigators to establish whether the changes were properly authorised and whether all bidders were notified through the prescribed channels.
The petition also raises questions over the regulatory licences held by companies recommended for contracts.
It refers to an allegation made before the PPARB that some successful bidders did not hold the required Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (EPRA) Class B licences at the relevant time.
Awino is asking the relevant authorities to establish whether the successful bidders met all licensing requirements when they were evaluated and recommended for award.
The petition also raises questions about possible common ownership or control involving some of the companies.
It cites allegations concerning Pridas Power System Ltd and Lenican Agencies Ltd, including the use of a common telephone number.
It also referred to allegations involving Capstone Construction Ltd and Lukelesia Ltd, including a common postal address and directors said to share a family name and address.
Awino stresses that he is not asking the court to treat the allegations as established facts.
Instead, he wanted the relevant authorities to investigate whether the companies were under common ownership or control, whether such relationships were disclosed and whether they were considered during the evaluation process.
The petition also questions the use of a Cost Handbook in the financial evaluation of the bids.
The tender documents reportedly provided for abnormal prices to be identified using a benchmark based on the powerline construction services Cost Handbook.
However, the petition cites a complaint that the handbook used in the evaluation had not been properly incorporated into or disclosed in the tender documents.
Awino wants investigators to establish when the handbook was published, when it became available to bidders, the specific tender provision incorporating it and how the benchmark was applied in evaluating the financial bids.
He also sought records showing whether the prices submitted by successful bidders were properly disclosed to unsuccessful tenderers.
Among the information sought are winning tender prices, evaluated prices, evaluation scores, reasons for disqualification of unsuccessful bidders and documents showing how the successful bidders were selected.
Awino argues that transparency in public procurement is a constitutional requirement under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition also raises questions about the role of Kenya Power’s accounting officer in approving the tender recommendations.
According to the petition, William Mathu, the Acting General Manager for Supply Chain and Logistics, prepared a Professional Opinion on May 26, 2026, reviewing the procurement process and supporting the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee.
The opinion was approved as recommended on May 28, 2026 by the accounting officer.
Awino does not ask the court to find the accounting officer guilty of wrongdoing.
Instead, he wants the relevant authorities to establish whether the officer properly examined the evaluation report, verified the qualifications of the successful bidders, considered possible conflicts of interest and satisfied himself that the tender remained valid before approving the recommendations.
The petitioner is asking the court to order Kenya Power and other relevant parties to preserve all documents and electronic records relating to the procurement.
The records sought include emails, text messages, tender-opening records, evaluation documents, committee minutes, conflict-of-interest declarations, company ownership records, licences, financial evaluation spreadsheets, the Cost Handbook and approval documents.
Awino is also asking the court to direct the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) to conduct an independent review of the procurement and submit its findings to the court.
He further wants the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to consider and investigate, within its statutory mandate, allegations concerning possible conflicts of interest, undisclosed common control and any potential loss or risk to public resources.
Should the investigations establish that public funds were lost, Awino wants the relevant authorities to take steps to recover the money in accordance with the law.
The petitioner maintains that the case is not an attempt to reopen the commercial dispute previously brought before the PPARB or to have the High Court re-evaluate individual bids.
Instead, he says the petition seeks to ensure that constitutional principles governing public procurement are observed and that unresolved questions are subjected to scrutiny by the appropriate oversight bodies.
The petition relies on Articles 10, 22, 23, 47, 201, 227 and 258 of the Constitution, which address national values and principles, enforcement of constitutional rights, fair administrative action, prudent management of public finances, public procurement and the enforcement of constitutional obligations.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
