The High Court has given Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen) the greenlight to proceed with a Sh2.5 billion tender for sale of 6.38 million carbon credits after dismissing a petition filed by a losing bidder.
Carbon credits represent a reduction or removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere through, for example, switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy like geothermal.
These credits are bought by businesses and other entities seeking to meet voluntary or mandatory environmental regulations and targets.
The court dismissed the petition by Sintmond Group Ltd, stating that it was persuaded by the Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board that the application by the firm stemmed from the fact that the board reached a conclusion unfavourable to it and not because there was noncompliance with the law.
“Accordingly, this court is satisfied that in reaching the decision that it did, the 1st respondent (board) considered all the pleadings, evidence, submissions by the parties that were before it and the court orders issued in prior applications. This court cannot therefore interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion on the facts,” ruled the court on May 22, 2026.
Sintmond Group Ltd challenged the procurement process after the board dismissed its application for review.
The procurement board had dismissed Sintmond’s bid after the firm failed to table evidence to show that it had the capacity to carry out the work, by providing a list of independent client references evidencing successful completion of similar contracts.
The firm’s bid for sale of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) was disqualified after failing to provide independent evidence of successful performance in previous contracts of comparable value and complexity, despite being given an opportunity to do so.
The company then moved to the High Court arguing that the board violated its rights and denying it a fair hearing, and sanctioning an unfair and unlawful procurement process.
The board defended the decision stating that failure to provide clients list contravened the terms in the tender documents, which required bidders to demonstrate capacity and reliability through verifiable past performance.
The board maintained that Sintmond Group Ltd had succeeded twice before the High Court in quashing previous board decisions and was therefore seeking a third judicial review, not because the board failed to comply with court directions, but because it reached a conclusion unfavourable to the firm.
In any case, there was no court order mandating the board to award the contract to the firm and the only requirement by the court was that the evaluation be undertaken in strict adherence to the law.
On its part, the electricity generating firm said Sintmond Group Ltd did not demonstrate any prior experience or capacity to manage a contract of similar magnitude and when considered against the backdrop of the earlier terminated tender, the firm’s performance history did not inspire confidence in its ability to deliver.
“Accordingly, we are persuaded that a reasonable and prudent procuring entity, faced with the same set of facts, would have reached a similar conclusion that the Applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient ability/capability to perform the tender,” the board said.
KenGen advertised the bids in May asking bidders to demonstrate previous successful participation in emission reduction trading or transactions of CERs or Voluntary Emission Reductions (VERs), which would form part of the evaluation criteria.
Three tenders were received from Munja Trading Limited in a Joint Venture with Marwil Energy Holding AS, Kyoto Network Limited and Sintmond Group Limited.
Upon conclusion of the evaluation stage, the tender committee found the joint venture responsive.
The evaluation committee determined that Munja Trading Limited in a Joint Venture with Marwil Energy Holding AS, had submitted the highest evaluated tender price, cumulatively amounting to $19,637,758 (2.53 billion), and was therefore ranked as the best evaluated bidder.
Sintmond Group challenged the decision arguing that the procuring entity improperly relied on extraneous and undisclosed due diligence criteria, to disqualify it from the tender.
