A High Court ruling this week has upheld a decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board that forced Kenya Electricity Generating Company to revisit checks on a Sh106.8 million tender for compressor spares and technical support at its geothermal plants.
The tender, numbered KGN-OLK-088-2026, sought a three-year framework agreement for CompAir compressors used at Olkaria.
Bids closed in April 2026. Four firms responded, and in June KenGen notified Comprehensive Development Limited that it was the intended winner.
The company had submitted a warranty certificate and manufacturer’s authorisation form issued by a Chinese firm, Jiangmen Hongze Environmental Protection Co. Ltd.
KenGen’s evaluation team then contacted Jiangmen Hongze and asked the firm to confirm that it was entitled to issue those documents. Jiangmen Hongze replied that it was.
KenGen treated the exchange as due diligence. Finton Logistics Limited, one of the unsuccessful bidders, challenged the award at the Review Board. It argued that CompAir forms part of the Gardner Denver and Ingersoll Rand group and that Jiangmen Hongze was not an authorised agent for the brand or the project.
The Board agreed that the papers looked complete on their face but that KenGen had never independently established the authority behind them.
It nullified the award notifications and ordered the evaluation committee to obtain fresh verification from the manufacturer or another authoritative source before proceeding.
Comprehensive Development Limited took the Board’s order to the High Court, claiming the extra check amounted to a new requirement that had never been disclosed.
The court rejected that argument. It held that the tender already demanded proof of authorised status and that KenGen’s method of asking the disputed party to confirm itself did not meet the legal standard for due diligence. The court found no illegality or overreach in the Board’s decision and dismissed the challenge.
The case is one of several recent disputes in which KenGen’s verification steps have been questioned. In a separate carbon-credits sale and an earlier geothermal consultancy tender, courts and the Review Board have repeatedly sent the company back to re-examine documents or restart processes.
In one older wellhead leasing tender, questions over certificates of incorporation also led to prolonged litigation. Officials at KenGen have not publicly contested the need for clearer checks in the compressor case.
The company’s accounting officer told the Review Board that confirming the authenticity of the documents was neither onerous nor prejudicial. The High Court ruling simply confirmed that such confirmation should take place before any award is notified, not after.
Geothermal plants rely on reliable equipment and enforceable warranties.
Add Comment