1. All these 3 matters arise from the same public procurement process, that was being under taken by the Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC, which I shall hereafter refer to as the procuring entity, in respect of tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26, for provision of guarding or security services. The procurement comprised of 2 categories, being classes A and B.
2. A total of 70 bids were received, including from Riley Falcon Services Limited, Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited, Sumich Solutions Limited and Hounslow Security Limited, who are parties in these proceedings. Upon preliminary evaluation, 39 of them were found to be non-responsive, with 31, who included the 6 parties recited above, were found to have met the preliminary evaluation requirements, and were progressed to the technical evaluation stage, where 1 of the 31 bidders failed to meet the test, and was disqualified. The remaining 30, who included the 6 parties herein, were progressed to the financial evaluation stage.
3. Out of the 30 successful bidders, evaluated at the technical stage, 7 were progressed to the financial evaluation stage, out of which 2, being Ismax Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited, were found non-responsive in some regions and responsive in others. Among the 6 parties herein, Riley Falcon Services Limited, did not qualify, on account of non-competitive prices. 4 bidders, out of the 7 successful bidders from the technical stage, were awarded the tender as the lowest evaluated tenderers, being Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited.
4. For the Class B category, 23 out of the 30 successful bidders at technical evaluation stage were progressed to the financial evaluation stage. In the end, an award was made to 15 bidders, including Hounslow Security Limited.
5. Riley Falcon Services Limited was aggrieved by that procurement process, and filed a request for review, with the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, the principal respondent in these proceedings, being PPARB No. 90 of 2026, and named Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited as interested parties. In the end, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board ruled, on 9th July 2026, in favour of Riley Falcon Services Limited, by nullifying the entire procurement proceedings relating to tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26. The said decision, of 9th July 2026, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, provoked the filing of the 3 judicial review proceedings herein.
6. The first, in time, was by Hounslow Security Limited, vide Milimani HCJR/E259/2026, for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings, seeking to have that decision of 9th July 2026 nullified and its implementation prohibited. The leave sought was granted on 22nd July 2026, with an additional order that the same was to operate as a stay of that decision. Hounslow Security Limited subsequently filed the substantive motion, in Milimani HCJR No. E269 of 2026. Its principal argument is that the proceedings in PPARB No. 90 of 2026 only related to the Class A category of the tender, in respect of which Riley Falcon Services Limited had participated, and was complaining about, and not Class B, where it had not participated. It is argued that the decision was made without jurisdiction, in excess of mandate, breached the rules of natural justice, there was an error of law on the face of the record, was irrational and unreasonable, relevant considerations were not made, was against legitimate expectation, among others.
7. The next, in line, was by Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited, vide Milimani HCJR/E261/2026, for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings, to quash the said decision of 9th July 2026, and to prohibit it. The matter was placed before me on 23rd July 2026, and I granted the leave sought, with an order that the same do operate as a stay. The substantive motion was eventually filed, in Milimani HCJR No. 272 of 2026. It is premised on unfairness, irrationality and unreasonableness, error of law and breach of legitimate expectation.
8. The third challenge, to that decision, came from the procuring entity, in Milimani HCJR/E262 of 2026, initiated by way of an originating motion, dated 22nd July 2026. It seeks the quashing of the decision of 9th July 2026, and declarations that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted unlawfully, in excess of jurisdiction, introduced an undisclosed evaluation criterion and annulled the Class B award without any supporting finding. Alternatively, it is sought that the matter be remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board for fresh hearing. The originating motion is grounded on procedural unfairness, procedural impropriety, denial of right to be heard, excess of jurisdiction or ultra vires, error of law regarding document authentication, mis-interpretation of section 83 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, Cap. 412C, Laws of Kenya, irrationality and contradiction, failure to give adequate reasons, gross disproportionality and failure to consider relevant public-interest factors, and unlawful nullification of Class B procurement.
9. The first matter was placed before me on 22nd July 2026 and the other 2 on 23rd July 2026, and I granted leave, as recited above, for those brought under order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and gave comprehensive directions on filings and service of documents. I fixed all 3 for mention on 18th August 2026, to monitor compliance, and I also fixed judgement date for 31st August 2026, for all 3. When the 3 matters were mentioned on 18th August 2026, all the parties in them were in agreement that they could all be consolidated, and disposed of simultaneously. That order was made, and it was directed that all the parties exchange pleadings and the other filings across the board, and thereafter file and exchange further submissions, if need be. I made Milimani HCJR No. E262 of 2026, the lead file, as it was the first substantive cause to be filed.
10. Let me now recite the principal filings in each of the 3 matters, for the purpose of setting the factual background, according to the parties, apart from the skeletal background that I have given above.
11. The originating motion, filed in Milimani HCJR No. E262 of 2026, largely sets out the prayers sought therein, and the grounds upon which they are premised. The affidavit in support is sworn by Dr. Eng. Joseph Siror, on 22nd July 2026. There is a background. The tender, number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26, was for provision of security guarding services, for the purpose of safeguarding the infrastructure, substations, offices and installations of the procuring entity, spread out across the country. The invitation to tender was issued on 27th February 2026, through the electronic procurement system of the procuring entity, in compliance with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Rules 2020. A pre-bid meeting was held, on 6th March 2026, with prospective bidders, who were afforded a chance to seek clarifications on the tender requirements. The tender submission period closed on 9th April 2026, and, at opening of the bids, it transpired that 70 bids had been received. The same were evaluated, and the successful bidders were identified, and the awards made to them. Riley Falcon Services Limited was not one of those who were successful, and it was duly notified so.
12. Riley Falcon Services Limited was aggrieved, and filed PPARB No. 90 of 2026. It complained about the description of its financial prices as not competitive, allocation of 206 guards to Ismax Security Services Limited and that a shareholder of Sumich Solutions Limited was a public officer, contrary to section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. The procuring entity responded to the request for review, and furnished the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board with the requisite confidential procurement record. Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited, who were all successful bidders, also filed their documents. The decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board came out on 9th July 2026. It found that the allegation concerning violation of section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act was not proved. It nevertheless proceeded to annul the entire procurement process, on other parameters.
13. It is contended that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board determined a number of separate and independent issues that were neither pleaded nor canvassed by the parties. Some of the issues are identified as authentication of documents submitted by unrelated bidders, elimination of unrelated bidders at the preliminary evaluation stage, the timing and scope of the due diligence under section 83 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, the administrative splitting of the Nairobi and Western regions, alleged revision of financial figures relating to several successful bidders, alleged inconsistencies with the tender document, and the validity of Class A and Class B procurement proceedings.
14. It is urged that, prior to the impugned decision, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board did not notify the parties that the foregoing matters were to be considered. It is submitted that there was denial of an opportunity to present evidence or canvass the said matters, particularly to explain the statutory and tender-document basis for document authentication, the evaluation methodology and regional allocation framework, the financial evaluation figures and calculations, and the separate and severable nature of Class A and Class B procurements. It is argued that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board did not confine itself to the issues raised in the request for review, but effectively transformed the proceedings into a wholesome audit of the entire procurement process involving all the 70 bidders. It is argued that by so doing, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board exceeded the scope of the dispute before it, and it determined matters that had neither been pleaded nor submitted for determination.
15. It is stated that the tender document expressly reserved the right of the procuring entity to verify and authenticate documents, and required bidders to establish their qualifications to its satisfaction, in accordance with section 55(5) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. It is argued that the authentication exercise was meant to verify whether the certificates, licences and statutory documents relied upon by the tenderers were genuine, valid and attributable to the entities presenting them. It is submitted that the verification did not introduce nor apply a new substantive or undisclosed evaluation criterion. It is argued that the conclusion, by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, wrongly equated the verification to introduction of a new criterion, explaining that failure to verify would require procuring entities to accept documents that are potentially false, mismatched or fraudulently attributed merely because they were uploaded by a bidder.
16. Regarding the Class B, it is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board nullified the process relating to it without identifying any specific irregularity affecting it, and that the alleged administrative conflict concerning the allocation of guards was confined to Class A, and did not affect Class B.
17. A number of copies of documents are attached to the supporting affidavit. There is a copy of a Board authority for the filing of the matter in court. A copy of the tender document, in respect of tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26 is annexed. A copy of the notification of intention to award the tender, dated 12th June 2026, addressed to Riley Falcon Services Limited, is also annexed. There is a copy of a notification of appeal, dated 18th June 2026, issued with respect to the filing of PPARB No. 90 of 2026. The request for review, filed by Riley Falcon Services Limited, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, is also attached, together with the other papers filed with it. The responses filed by the other parties, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, are also attached. The decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, delivered on 9th July 2026, is the last annexture.
18. The statutory statement, filed in Milimani HCJR E259/269 of 2026, dated 20th July 2026, essentially carries the 2 prayers for certiorari and prohibition, and the grounds. The verifying affidavit is by Mr. Eric Ochieng Juma, a director of Hounslow Security Limited, sworn on even date. It is averred that Hounslow Security Limited participated in tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26, and was declared successful, with respect to Class B. Riley Falcon Services Limited was an unsuccessful bidder with relation to Class A, and filed PPARB No. 90 of 2026, challenging its disqualification, with respect to that class, and the award, in that class, to Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited. It is averred that PPARB No. 90 of 2026 was all about Class A, and nothing to do with Class B, and, for that reason, Hounslow Security Limited was never made a party to those proceedings. The decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, however, nullified the entire procurement process, relating to tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26, including the awards made with respect to Class B. It is submitted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted in excess of jurisdiction, breached rules of natural justice, did not hear Hounslow Security Limited on the matter, breached legitimate expectation, and was irrational and unreasonable.
19. Attached to the affidavit are several documents. There is a certificate of incorporation of Hounslow Security Limited, dated 27th April 2016. There is a notification to Hounslow Security Limited, dated 12th June 2026, of the award of the tender to it, in Class B. There is a copy of the request for review, filed in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, by Riley Falcon Services Limited. There is a copy of the memorandum of response, filed in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, by the procuring entity, on 29th June 2026. Finally, there is the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, dated 9th June 2026.
20. The statutory statement, filed in Milimani HCJR No. E261/272 of 2026, dated 21st January 2026, essentially states the 2 reliefs sought, of certiorari and prohibition, and the grounds upon which they are premised. The verifying affidavit is sworn by Mr. Pius Chelimo, of Lavington Security Services Limited, on even date. It is averred that Lavington Security Services Limited participated in the impugned tendering process, successfully. It is argued that the bid by Riley Falcon Services Limited was disqualified at the preliminary stages, and the said Riley Falcon Services Limited did not challenge that disqualification at that stage, hence it was wrong for Public Procurement Administrative Review Board to find and hold that it ought to have had been subjected to further evaluation. It is argued that paragraph 100 of the ruling of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board had found that the request for review had failed on merits, but nonetheless proceeded to order the total cancelation of the tender process, thereby rendering the final orders illogical and contradictory. It is further argued that Class B bidders were not afforded a chance to be heard. It is submitted that the decision was irrational and unlawful, and there was a misconstruction of sections 63 and 173 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
21. An authority to act, on behalf of Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited is attached. A copy of the decision, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, dated 9th July 2026, is also attached, and so is the request for review, filed in that cause, dated 17th June 2026.
22. I have seen the response by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, vide an affidavit sworn by Mr. Philemon Kiprop, its Secretary. It is asserted that the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board of 9th July 2026 was based on the pleadings, written submissions, lists and bundles of authorities filed by the parties, as well as the confidential documents submitted pursuant to section 67(3)(g) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. It is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board identified the issues that had been placed before it, and found that the claim, founded on section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, was not proved. On the issue of compliance with section 80 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, it is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board found that the imposition of the 200 guards per successful bidder, created an award criteria inconsistent with the provisions of the tender documents, hence the requirements of section 80 were not complied with.
23. Riley Falcon Services Limited, as interested party, filed a replying affidavit, sworn on 10th August 2026, by Mr. Tobias See, its Managing Director. It is averred that it participated in the tendering process, by placing a bid, with relation to Class A. It is asserted that its bid was responsive, as it met all the requirements in the tender document. It is averred that it was aggrieved, when it was notified that it had been unsuccessful, hence it filed its request for review, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, which was successful. It is submitted that the judicial review application herein is more of an appeal against the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, as it has not brought out any illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness and procedural impropriety in the said decision.
24. It is argued that the jurisdiction of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board is set out in section 173 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, and it is to ensure compliance, with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and the Constitution, by procuring entities. It is submitted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board is not a body to resolve disputes, in has a mandate to ensure and restore legality to procurement proceedings, and once a review request is filed, it is mandated to grant any lawful remedy necessary, to cure any illegality disclosed by the procurement process. It is asserted that it is for that reason that section 67 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act requires that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board have access to the confidential record. It is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board cannot turn a blind eye to any obvious illegalities.
25. On the severability of Classes A and B under the subject tender, it is submitted that paragraphs 70 to 99, of the determination, identified the inconsistency inherent in the tender document, which affected both Classes A and B, which made incapable simultaneous compliance, which made the evaluation subjective rather than objective. It is averred that the subject tender was not confined to Class A, but the procurement instrument governed both processes, hence a defect in the tender document affected every evaluation undertaken under it. It is asserted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board found an illegality in the document, which governed both processes, hence, it invalidated both. On the matter of the hearing of Class B bidders, it is averred that the request for review was meant to address the grievance of Class A bidders. However, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was bound to determine whether the entire tender document was lawful or not. It is asserted that the right, of the Class B bidders to be heard, did not automatically translate to a right to preserve an unlawful process.
26. On protection of public interest, Article 227 of the Constitution is cited, to argue that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board is under a duty to apply the constitutional principles, in that provision, to safeguard procurement legality. It is asserted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board properly found that the mandatory provisions of the tender document were contradictory, hence they deprived the evaluation committee of a clear, objective and consistently applicable framework, upon which evaluation and award of the tender could lawfully proceed.
27. Directions, on the disposal of the 3 matters, were given separately. It was to be by way of written submissions, in either case. Further directions were given on 18th August 2026, when the matters were consolidated. The parties have complied, by filing their respective written submissions.
28. The written submissions by the procuring entity are dated 17th August 2026. They address only 1 issue, whether the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board violated Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution, and the Fair Administrative Action Act, Cap 7C, Laws of Kenya, by determining the matter before it on grounds that had not been pleaded or properly canvassed. It is submitted that the decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was based on grounds other than those raised in the request for review. It is argued that the issues addressed by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board were not merely ancillary factual considerations, but independent and dispositive grounds upon which it interfered with the procurement proceedings.
29. It is asserted that the confidential procurement documents cannot be used to uncover new and unpleaded issues, and to invalidate a tender without giving the parties a chance to canvass the issues. Regulation 203(2) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Regulations 2020, and Vickers Security Services Limited vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others [2025] are cited. It is asserted that parties are bound by their pleadings, and Abdirahman Ibrahim Mohamud vs. Mohamed Ahmed Kolosh & others [2018] eKLR is cited. It is submitted that a person affected by an adverse administrative decision should be afforded an opportunity to be heard, and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others [2019] eKLR, Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 others vs. Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 others [2018] eKLR and Abdirahman Ibrahim Mohamud vs. Mohamed Ahmed Kolosh & others [2018] eKLR are cited.
30. It is submitted that section 28(1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act defines the functions of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board as reviewing, hearing and determining tendering and asset disposal disputes, while section 173 sets out the remedies that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board can give. It is argued that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board can only exercise its power lawfully and fairly within the dispute that has been properly placed before it. It is argued that section 167(1) permits a candidate or tenderer to seek an administrative review founded on a loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered, hence jurisdiction can only be invoked upon a specific complaint of an alleged breach. It is argued that section 173 does not grant the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board an unlimited jurisdiction to initiate independent investigation into every aspect of the procedure, once a request for review is filed.
31. It is also submitted that the instant cause is a proper judicial review application, and not a disguised appeal, and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Accounting Officer Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC & 21 others (Interested Parties) Harpon Security Services Limited (Ex parte) [2024] KEHC 5104 (KLR) and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Accounting officer, Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC & another (Interested Parties) Jamari Enterprises Limited (Ex parte) [2026] KEHC 501 (KLR) are cited.
32. The written submissions by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board are dated 11th August 2026. They also identify only 1 issue, whether the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was illegal, irregular, irrational, unreasonable or breached legitimate expectation. It is asserted that all those elements have not been established. Sections 59, 80 and 173 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act are cited; while the decisions in Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others Ex-parte Plove Telecommunications Pvt Limited [2014], Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] EA 300, Okoth & Kiplagat Advocates vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others [2026] KEHC 6171 (KLR) and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Kenya Roads Board & 3 others (Interested Parties) and Lavington Security Limited (Ex- Parte applicant) [2024] KEHC 14897 (KLR) are relied upon.
33. Having reviewed the filings herein, being the Originating Motion, the affidavits supporting it, the affidavits sworn against it, the ex parte chamber summonses and the motions, the verifying affidavits and annextures to the various affidavits, as well as the written submissions filed to argue the respective positions taken by the parties, my persuasion is that there is only 1 issue to be determined, and that is whether a case is made out, in the 3 causes, for the orders sought in them.
34. As indicated above, the 3 causes turn on the same procurement process, undertaken by the procuring entity herein. The principal arguments are, that the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, made on 9th July 2026, was premised on issues that were not pleaded before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; hence it was based on extraneous considerations, and went beyond the scope of the case presented; and that, with respect to Class B contracts, Hounslow Security Limited was condemned unheard.
35. In determining the matters before me, I remind myself of the principle stated in Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] EA 300. These are judicial review proceedings. I am not seized of an appeal against the decision in PPARB No. 90 of 2026. I am not to consider the outcome on its merits. Rather, it is an invitation to consider the process that led up to the impugned decision, with a view to establish whether the same was lawful and procedurally fair, and whether the decision itself was rational and reasonable. There could be a thin line, but judicial review is principally about consideration of the process, and not the merits.
36. The starting point should ideally be with the matter that was placed before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited. In the request for review filed, dated 17th June 2026, Riley Falcon Security Services Limited raised 3 complaints, that its bid had complied with all the requirements provided in the tender document, and was responsive, hence its disqualification, on grounds of not being competitive, was based on an undefined criterion; the award made contravened clause ITT 46.1 of the tender document, by awarding more than 200 guards to the successful bidders, in Class A; and that the procuring entity had not defined, in its letter of notification of award, dated 12th June 2026, the precise basis for the disqualification. The grounds detailed are that Riley Falcon Security Services Limited was disqualified on grounds not stipulated in the tender document; and the reasons given for the disqualification were illegal, unlawful and draconian; among others. The affidavit, supporting that request for review, reproduces the same 3 issues word for word.
37. In its determination, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board identified 3 issues for determination: on whether section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act was violated, in relation to the bid by Sumich Solutions Limited; whether the procuring entity properly evaluated the tender by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, subject to the tender document, in accordance with section 80 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act; and the orders to be made in the circumstances.
38. The first issue turned on 1 of the shareholders in Sumich Solutions Limited being a public officer, hence contravening section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, which disqualifies bids by public officers or entities in which they have an interest. After reviewing the material, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board concluded that there was no evidence that the said shareholder was a serving public officer.
39. On the orders to be made in the circumstances, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board considered that the first issue it had identified had not been proved, with relation to the contravention of section 59 of the Public Procurement and
[...truncated]
2. A total of 70 bids were received, including from Riley Falcon Services Limited, Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited, Sumich Solutions Limited and Hounslow Security Limited, who are parties in these proceedings. Upon preliminary evaluation, 39 of them were found to be non-responsive, with 31, who included the 6 parties recited above, were found to have met the preliminary evaluation requirements, and were progressed to the technical evaluation stage, where 1 of the 31 bidders failed to meet the test, and was disqualified. The remaining 30, who included the 6 parties herein, were progressed to the financial evaluation stage.
3. Out of the 30 successful bidders, evaluated at the technical stage, 7 were progressed to the financial evaluation stage, out of which 2, being Ismax Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited, were found non-responsive in some regions and responsive in others. Among the 6 parties herein, Riley Falcon Services Limited, did not qualify, on account of non-competitive prices. 4 bidders, out of the 7 successful bidders from the technical stage, were awarded the tender as the lowest evaluated tenderers, being Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited.
4. For the Class B category, 23 out of the 30 successful bidders at technical evaluation stage were progressed to the financial evaluation stage. In the end, an award was made to 15 bidders, including Hounslow Security Limited.
5. Riley Falcon Services Limited was aggrieved by that procurement process, and filed a request for review, with the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, the principal respondent in these proceedings, being PPARB No. 90 of 2026, and named Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited as interested parties. In the end, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board ruled, on 9th July 2026, in favour of Riley Falcon Services Limited, by nullifying the entire procurement proceedings relating to tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26. The said decision, of 9th July 2026, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, provoked the filing of the 3 judicial review proceedings herein.
6. The first, in time, was by Hounslow Security Limited, vide Milimani HCJR/E259/2026, for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings, seeking to have that decision of 9th July 2026 nullified and its implementation prohibited. The leave sought was granted on 22nd July 2026, with an additional order that the same was to operate as a stay of that decision. Hounslow Security Limited subsequently filed the substantive motion, in Milimani HCJR No. E269 of 2026. Its principal argument is that the proceedings in PPARB No. 90 of 2026 only related to the Class A category of the tender, in respect of which Riley Falcon Services Limited had participated, and was complaining about, and not Class B, where it had not participated. It is argued that the decision was made without jurisdiction, in excess of mandate, breached the rules of natural justice, there was an error of law on the face of the record, was irrational and unreasonable, relevant considerations were not made, was against legitimate expectation, among others.
7. The next, in line, was by Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited, vide Milimani HCJR/E261/2026, for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings, to quash the said decision of 9th July 2026, and to prohibit it. The matter was placed before me on 23rd July 2026, and I granted the leave sought, with an order that the same do operate as a stay. The substantive motion was eventually filed, in Milimani HCJR No. 272 of 2026. It is premised on unfairness, irrationality and unreasonableness, error of law and breach of legitimate expectation.
8. The third challenge, to that decision, came from the procuring entity, in Milimani HCJR/E262 of 2026, initiated by way of an originating motion, dated 22nd July 2026. It seeks the quashing of the decision of 9th July 2026, and declarations that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted unlawfully, in excess of jurisdiction, introduced an undisclosed evaluation criterion and annulled the Class B award without any supporting finding. Alternatively, it is sought that the matter be remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board for fresh hearing. The originating motion is grounded on procedural unfairness, procedural impropriety, denial of right to be heard, excess of jurisdiction or ultra vires, error of law regarding document authentication, mis-interpretation of section 83 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, Cap. 412C, Laws of Kenya, irrationality and contradiction, failure to give adequate reasons, gross disproportionality and failure to consider relevant public-interest factors, and unlawful nullification of Class B procurement.
9. The first matter was placed before me on 22nd July 2026 and the other 2 on 23rd July 2026, and I granted leave, as recited above, for those brought under order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and gave comprehensive directions on filings and service of documents. I fixed all 3 for mention on 18th August 2026, to monitor compliance, and I also fixed judgement date for 31st August 2026, for all 3. When the 3 matters were mentioned on 18th August 2026, all the parties in them were in agreement that they could all be consolidated, and disposed of simultaneously. That order was made, and it was directed that all the parties exchange pleadings and the other filings across the board, and thereafter file and exchange further submissions, if need be. I made Milimani HCJR No. E262 of 2026, the lead file, as it was the first substantive cause to be filed.
10. Let me now recite the principal filings in each of the 3 matters, for the purpose of setting the factual background, according to the parties, apart from the skeletal background that I have given above.
11. The originating motion, filed in Milimani HCJR No. E262 of 2026, largely sets out the prayers sought therein, and the grounds upon which they are premised. The affidavit in support is sworn by Dr. Eng. Joseph Siror, on 22nd July 2026. There is a background. The tender, number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26, was for provision of security guarding services, for the purpose of safeguarding the infrastructure, substations, offices and installations of the procuring entity, spread out across the country. The invitation to tender was issued on 27th February 2026, through the electronic procurement system of the procuring entity, in compliance with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Rules 2020. A pre-bid meeting was held, on 6th March 2026, with prospective bidders, who were afforded a chance to seek clarifications on the tender requirements. The tender submission period closed on 9th April 2026, and, at opening of the bids, it transpired that 70 bids had been received. The same were evaluated, and the successful bidders were identified, and the awards made to them. Riley Falcon Services Limited was not one of those who were successful, and it was duly notified so.
12. Riley Falcon Services Limited was aggrieved, and filed PPARB No. 90 of 2026. It complained about the description of its financial prices as not competitive, allocation of 206 guards to Ismax Security Services Limited and that a shareholder of Sumich Solutions Limited was a public officer, contrary to section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. The procuring entity responded to the request for review, and furnished the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board with the requisite confidential procurement record. Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited, who were all successful bidders, also filed their documents. The decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board came out on 9th July 2026. It found that the allegation concerning violation of section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act was not proved. It nevertheless proceeded to annul the entire procurement process, on other parameters.
13. It is contended that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board determined a number of separate and independent issues that were neither pleaded nor canvassed by the parties. Some of the issues are identified as authentication of documents submitted by unrelated bidders, elimination of unrelated bidders at the preliminary evaluation stage, the timing and scope of the due diligence under section 83 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, the administrative splitting of the Nairobi and Western regions, alleged revision of financial figures relating to several successful bidders, alleged inconsistencies with the tender document, and the validity of Class A and Class B procurement proceedings.
14. It is urged that, prior to the impugned decision, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board did not notify the parties that the foregoing matters were to be considered. It is submitted that there was denial of an opportunity to present evidence or canvass the said matters, particularly to explain the statutory and tender-document basis for document authentication, the evaluation methodology and regional allocation framework, the financial evaluation figures and calculations, and the separate and severable nature of Class A and Class B procurements. It is argued that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board did not confine itself to the issues raised in the request for review, but effectively transformed the proceedings into a wholesome audit of the entire procurement process involving all the 70 bidders. It is argued that by so doing, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board exceeded the scope of the dispute before it, and it determined matters that had neither been pleaded nor submitted for determination.
15. It is stated that the tender document expressly reserved the right of the procuring entity to verify and authenticate documents, and required bidders to establish their qualifications to its satisfaction, in accordance with section 55(5) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. It is argued that the authentication exercise was meant to verify whether the certificates, licences and statutory documents relied upon by the tenderers were genuine, valid and attributable to the entities presenting them. It is submitted that the verification did not introduce nor apply a new substantive or undisclosed evaluation criterion. It is argued that the conclusion, by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, wrongly equated the verification to introduction of a new criterion, explaining that failure to verify would require procuring entities to accept documents that are potentially false, mismatched or fraudulently attributed merely because they were uploaded by a bidder.
16. Regarding the Class B, it is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board nullified the process relating to it without identifying any specific irregularity affecting it, and that the alleged administrative conflict concerning the allocation of guards was confined to Class A, and did not affect Class B.
17. A number of copies of documents are attached to the supporting affidavit. There is a copy of a Board authority for the filing of the matter in court. A copy of the tender document, in respect of tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26 is annexed. A copy of the notification of intention to award the tender, dated 12th June 2026, addressed to Riley Falcon Services Limited, is also annexed. There is a copy of a notification of appeal, dated 18th June 2026, issued with respect to the filing of PPARB No. 90 of 2026. The request for review, filed by Riley Falcon Services Limited, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, is also attached, together with the other papers filed with it. The responses filed by the other parties, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, are also attached. The decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, delivered on 9th July 2026, is the last annexture.
18. The statutory statement, filed in Milimani HCJR E259/269 of 2026, dated 20th July 2026, essentially carries the 2 prayers for certiorari and prohibition, and the grounds. The verifying affidavit is by Mr. Eric Ochieng Juma, a director of Hounslow Security Limited, sworn on even date. It is averred that Hounslow Security Limited participated in tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26, and was declared successful, with respect to Class B. Riley Falcon Services Limited was an unsuccessful bidder with relation to Class A, and filed PPARB No. 90 of 2026, challenging its disqualification, with respect to that class, and the award, in that class, to Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited. It is averred that PPARB No. 90 of 2026 was all about Class A, and nothing to do with Class B, and, for that reason, Hounslow Security Limited was never made a party to those proceedings. The decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, however, nullified the entire procurement process, relating to tender number KPI/9A.2/OT/069/SS/25-26, including the awards made with respect to Class B. It is submitted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted in excess of jurisdiction, breached rules of natural justice, did not hear Hounslow Security Limited on the matter, breached legitimate expectation, and was irrational and unreasonable.
19. Attached to the affidavit are several documents. There is a certificate of incorporation of Hounslow Security Limited, dated 27th April 2016. There is a notification to Hounslow Security Limited, dated 12th June 2026, of the award of the tender to it, in Class B. There is a copy of the request for review, filed in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, by Riley Falcon Services Limited. There is a copy of the memorandum of response, filed in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, by the procuring entity, on 29th June 2026. Finally, there is the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, dated 9th June 2026.
20. The statutory statement, filed in Milimani HCJR No. E261/272 of 2026, dated 21st January 2026, essentially states the 2 reliefs sought, of certiorari and prohibition, and the grounds upon which they are premised. The verifying affidavit is sworn by Mr. Pius Chelimo, of Lavington Security Services Limited, on even date. It is averred that Lavington Security Services Limited participated in the impugned tendering process, successfully. It is argued that the bid by Riley Falcon Services Limited was disqualified at the preliminary stages, and the said Riley Falcon Services Limited did not challenge that disqualification at that stage, hence it was wrong for Public Procurement Administrative Review Board to find and hold that it ought to have had been subjected to further evaluation. It is argued that paragraph 100 of the ruling of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board had found that the request for review had failed on merits, but nonetheless proceeded to order the total cancelation of the tender process, thereby rendering the final orders illogical and contradictory. It is further argued that Class B bidders were not afforded a chance to be heard. It is submitted that the decision was irrational and unlawful, and there was a misconstruction of sections 63 and 173 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
21. An authority to act, on behalf of Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited is attached. A copy of the decision, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, dated 9th July 2026, is also attached, and so is the request for review, filed in that cause, dated 17th June 2026.
22. I have seen the response by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, vide an affidavit sworn by Mr. Philemon Kiprop, its Secretary. It is asserted that the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board of 9th July 2026 was based on the pleadings, written submissions, lists and bundles of authorities filed by the parties, as well as the confidential documents submitted pursuant to section 67(3)(g) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. It is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board identified the issues that had been placed before it, and found that the claim, founded on section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, was not proved. On the issue of compliance with section 80 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, it is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board found that the imposition of the 200 guards per successful bidder, created an award criteria inconsistent with the provisions of the tender documents, hence the requirements of section 80 were not complied with.
23. Riley Falcon Services Limited, as interested party, filed a replying affidavit, sworn on 10th August 2026, by Mr. Tobias See, its Managing Director. It is averred that it participated in the tendering process, by placing a bid, with relation to Class A. It is asserted that its bid was responsive, as it met all the requirements in the tender document. It is averred that it was aggrieved, when it was notified that it had been unsuccessful, hence it filed its request for review, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, which was successful. It is submitted that the judicial review application herein is more of an appeal against the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, as it has not brought out any illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness and procedural impropriety in the said decision.
24. It is argued that the jurisdiction of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board is set out in section 173 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, and it is to ensure compliance, with the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and the Constitution, by procuring entities. It is submitted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board is not a body to resolve disputes, in has a mandate to ensure and restore legality to procurement proceedings, and once a review request is filed, it is mandated to grant any lawful remedy necessary, to cure any illegality disclosed by the procurement process. It is asserted that it is for that reason that section 67 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act requires that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board have access to the confidential record. It is averred that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board cannot turn a blind eye to any obvious illegalities.
25. On the severability of Classes A and B under the subject tender, it is submitted that paragraphs 70 to 99, of the determination, identified the inconsistency inherent in the tender document, which affected both Classes A and B, which made incapable simultaneous compliance, which made the evaluation subjective rather than objective. It is averred that the subject tender was not confined to Class A, but the procurement instrument governed both processes, hence a defect in the tender document affected every evaluation undertaken under it. It is asserted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board found an illegality in the document, which governed both processes, hence, it invalidated both. On the matter of the hearing of Class B bidders, it is averred that the request for review was meant to address the grievance of Class A bidders. However, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was bound to determine whether the entire tender document was lawful or not. It is asserted that the right, of the Class B bidders to be heard, did not automatically translate to a right to preserve an unlawful process.
26. On protection of public interest, Article 227 of the Constitution is cited, to argue that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board is under a duty to apply the constitutional principles, in that provision, to safeguard procurement legality. It is asserted that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board properly found that the mandatory provisions of the tender document were contradictory, hence they deprived the evaluation committee of a clear, objective and consistently applicable framework, upon which evaluation and award of the tender could lawfully proceed.
27. Directions, on the disposal of the 3 matters, were given separately. It was to be by way of written submissions, in either case. Further directions were given on 18th August 2026, when the matters were consolidated. The parties have complied, by filing their respective written submissions.
28. The written submissions by the procuring entity are dated 17th August 2026. They address only 1 issue, whether the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board violated Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution, and the Fair Administrative Action Act, Cap 7C, Laws of Kenya, by determining the matter before it on grounds that had not been pleaded or properly canvassed. It is submitted that the decision by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was based on grounds other than those raised in the request for review. It is argued that the issues addressed by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board were not merely ancillary factual considerations, but independent and dispositive grounds upon which it interfered with the procurement proceedings.
29. It is asserted that the confidential procurement documents cannot be used to uncover new and unpleaded issues, and to invalidate a tender without giving the parties a chance to canvass the issues. Regulation 203(2) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Regulations 2020, and Vickers Security Services Limited vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others [2025] are cited. It is asserted that parties are bound by their pleadings, and Abdirahman Ibrahim Mohamud vs. Mohamed Ahmed Kolosh & others [2018] eKLR is cited. It is submitted that a person affected by an adverse administrative decision should be afforded an opportunity to be heard, and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others [2019] eKLR, Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 others vs. Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 others [2018] eKLR and Abdirahman Ibrahim Mohamud vs. Mohamed Ahmed Kolosh & others [2018] eKLR are cited.
30. It is submitted that section 28(1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act defines the functions of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board as reviewing, hearing and determining tendering and asset disposal disputes, while section 173 sets out the remedies that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board can give. It is argued that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board can only exercise its power lawfully and fairly within the dispute that has been properly placed before it. It is argued that section 167(1) permits a candidate or tenderer to seek an administrative review founded on a loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered, hence jurisdiction can only be invoked upon a specific complaint of an alleged breach. It is argued that section 173 does not grant the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board an unlimited jurisdiction to initiate independent investigation into every aspect of the procedure, once a request for review is filed.
31. It is also submitted that the instant cause is a proper judicial review application, and not a disguised appeal, and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Accounting Officer Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC & 21 others (Interested Parties) Harpon Security Services Limited (Ex parte) [2024] KEHC 5104 (KLR) and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Accounting officer, Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC & another (Interested Parties) Jamari Enterprises Limited (Ex parte) [2026] KEHC 501 (KLR) are cited.
32. The written submissions by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board are dated 11th August 2026. They also identify only 1 issue, whether the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was illegal, irregular, irrational, unreasonable or breached legitimate expectation. It is asserted that all those elements have not been established. Sections 59, 80 and 173 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act are cited; while the decisions in Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others Ex-parte Plove Telecommunications Pvt Limited [2014], Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] EA 300, Okoth & Kiplagat Advocates vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others [2026] KEHC 6171 (KLR) and Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Kenya Roads Board & 3 others (Interested Parties) and Lavington Security Limited (Ex- Parte applicant) [2024] KEHC 14897 (KLR) are relied upon.
33. Having reviewed the filings herein, being the Originating Motion, the affidavits supporting it, the affidavits sworn against it, the ex parte chamber summonses and the motions, the verifying affidavits and annextures to the various affidavits, as well as the written submissions filed to argue the respective positions taken by the parties, my persuasion is that there is only 1 issue to be determined, and that is whether a case is made out, in the 3 causes, for the orders sought in them.
34. As indicated above, the 3 causes turn on the same procurement process, undertaken by the procuring entity herein. The principal arguments are, that the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, made on 9th July 2026, was premised on issues that were not pleaded before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; hence it was based on extraneous considerations, and went beyond the scope of the case presented; and that, with respect to Class B contracts, Hounslow Security Limited was condemned unheard.
35. In determining the matters before me, I remind myself of the principle stated in Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] EA 300. These are judicial review proceedings. I am not seized of an appeal against the decision in PPARB No. 90 of 2026. I am not to consider the outcome on its merits. Rather, it is an invitation to consider the process that led up to the impugned decision, with a view to establish whether the same was lawful and procedurally fair, and whether the decision itself was rational and reasonable. There could be a thin line, but judicial review is principally about consideration of the process, and not the merits.
36. The starting point should ideally be with the matter that was placed before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited. In the request for review filed, dated 17th June 2026, Riley Falcon Security Services Limited raised 3 complaints, that its bid had complied with all the requirements provided in the tender document, and was responsive, hence its disqualification, on grounds of not being competitive, was based on an undefined criterion; the award made contravened clause ITT 46.1 of the tender document, by awarding more than 200 guards to the successful bidders, in Class A; and that the procuring entity had not defined, in its letter of notification of award, dated 12th June 2026, the precise basis for the disqualification. The grounds detailed are that Riley Falcon Security Services Limited was disqualified on grounds not stipulated in the tender document; and the reasons given for the disqualification were illegal, unlawful and draconian; among others. The affidavit, supporting that request for review, reproduces the same 3 issues word for word.
37. In its determination, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board identified 3 issues for determination: on whether section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act was violated, in relation to the bid by Sumich Solutions Limited; whether the procuring entity properly evaluated the tender by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, subject to the tender document, in accordance with section 80 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act; and the orders to be made in the circumstances.
38. The first issue turned on 1 of the shareholders in Sumich Solutions Limited being a public officer, hence contravening section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, which disqualifies bids by public officers or entities in which they have an interest. After reviewing the material, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board concluded that there was no evidence that the said shareholder was a serving public officer.
39. On the orders to be made in the circumstances, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board considered that the first issue it had identified had not been proved, with relation to the contravention of section 59 of the Public Procurement and
[...truncated]