Managing Director & Chief Executive, Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc & 2 others v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 11 others; Hounslow Security Limited & 4 others (Ex parte)

Managing Director & Chief Executive, Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc & 2 others v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 11 others; Hounslow Security Limited & 4 others (Ex parte) (Judicial Review E262, E269 & E272 of 2026 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEHC 13381 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (31 August 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 13381 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Judicial Review Judicial Review E262, E269 & E272 of 2026 (Consolidated) WM Musyoka, J August 31, 2026 Between The Managing Director & Chief Executive, Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc 1st Applicant The Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc 2nd Applicant and Public Procurement Administrative Review Board 1st Respondent Riley Falcon Security Services Limited 2nd Respondent and Ismax Security Services Limited 1st Interested Party Lavington Security Services Limited 2nd Interested Party Spyeagle Security Services Limited 3rd Interested Party Sumich Solutions Limited 4th Interested Party As consolidated with Judicial Review E269 of 2026 Between Republic Applicant and Public Procurement Administrative Review Board Respondent and Riley Falcon Security Services Limited 1st Interested Party Managing Director & Chief Executive, Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc 2nd Interested Party Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc 3rd Interested Party Ismax Security Limited 4th Interested Party Lavington Security Services Limited 5th Interested Party Spy Eagle Security Services Limited 6th Interested Party Sumich Solutions Limited 7th Interested Party and Hounslow Security Limited Ex parte As consolidated with Judicial Review E272 of 2026 Between Republic Applicant and Public Procurement Administrative Review Board 1st Respondent Riley Falcon Security Services Limited 2nd Respondent and The Managing Director & Chief Executive, Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc 1st Interested Party Kenya Power & Lighting Company Plc 2nd Interested Party and Lavington security Services Limited Ex parte Ismax Security Ex parte Spy Eagle Security Services Limited Ex parte Sumich Solutions Limited Ex parte Judgment 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, in 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 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 the 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, it 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 Asset Disposal Act. On the second issue it had identified, relating to the evaluation of the bid by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, it found that there was a problem with the framing of the tender document, which made it internally inconsistent and incapable of objective implementation, forcing the evaluation committee to depart from some of the mandatory provisions of the tender in order to comply with another, something which made the process non-compliant with the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, competitiveness and objectivity. In the end, the issue on section 59 of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was dismissed, while that, relating to the faulty evaluation of the bid presented by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, was allowed. 40.I will start with the matter touching on section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. That was not pleaded in the request for review, filed by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026. The request for review, by virtue of section 167 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, is the pleading in the proceedings before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board. The affidavits, filed to place the evidential material before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, is not a pleading, for it only verifies or expounds on the matter pleaded in the request for review. It cannot be used, therefore, to expand the case pleaded in the request for review. The written submissions, filed by the parties, before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, are, equally, not pleadings. Written submissions are nothing more than arguments, founded on what is pleaded in the principal pleading, in this case the request for review. Written submissions cannot be used to expand the case presented in the principal pleadings. 41.Parties are bound by their pleadings. What is not pleaded is not an issue before the court or tribunal, even if it is raised in the affidavits or the written submissions. The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board ought to have confined itself to what was pleaded in the request for review, and ignored any fresh issues, introduced through the affidavits and the written submissions. The issue of section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act was not in the request for review, and, therefore, it was not an issue for determination, even if it came up in the affidavits and the written submissions. The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board ought not have expended its energy considering an issue that was not before it. 42.The second issue, that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board considered, with relation to whether the procuring entity properly disqualified the bid by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, was pleaded in the request for review. The broad question, in the request for review, was whether there was a proper evaluation of that bid, before it was disqualified. To determine that issue, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board considered, as it had to, the provisions of the tender document as against the evaluations done by the evaluation committee, and the recommended awards, before concluding that there was a problem, with the crafting of the tender document, which affected the manner in which the evaluation committee did its work. The finding and holding was that there was an internal inconsistency in the provisions of the tender document, which, in an effort at implementation, forced the evaluation committee to depart from some of the mandatory provisions of the tender, in order to comply with another mandatory provision. 43.That was found to be the case, particularly with respect to the requirement limiting allocations to 200 guards, yet the procuring entity violated that requirement, by proposing to award to 2 of the successful bidders, 206 guards. The procuring entity argued that that provision, on the capping of guards awarded to 200, had to be read with another provision, which required that each zone be awarded in its entirety for efficient management. The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board considered that there was an adjustment, which the procuring entity had sought to justify, on grounds that it did not affect the outcome of the procurement, and that any lower evaluated bidder had been overlooked. 44.The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, upon examining the tender document, identified 4 principles, which were intended to guide the procuring entity in the tendering process. The first was that a bidder could only be awarded under either Class A or Class B, and not both. Two, bidders were to be awarded zones in full, which meant that an entire zone was to be awarded to 1 bidder, as the tender document did not contemplate the sharing of a zone by several bidders. Three, there was a limitation, that no single bidder would be awarded more than 200 guards, exclusive of upcoming assignments. Four, and finally, the awards were to be based on the lowest evaluated price per zone, and once a bidder attained the prescribed allocation limit, the next lowest bidder would not be considered until all the zones were exhausted. It was noted that the requirements were mandatory. 45.However, despite capping allocation of guards at 200, per bidder per zone, the operational requirements of the procuring entity, as reflected in the tender document, for some regions and zones, exceeded the 200 guards stipulated in the tender document, with one zone requiring up to 245 guards. That presented a difficulty, in reconciling the required award criteria of a maximum of 200 guards, which necessitated splitting of that and like zones, between more than 1 bidder, something which was not contemplated in the terms of the tender document. It was an inherent inconsistency in the tender document, which forced the evaluation committee to depart from the requirements, rendering the process deficient, as it was based on a criterion that was non-objective. 46.The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board also considered the matter of the evaluation committee relying on due diligence findings, on authentication of supporting documents, as part of the evaluation process. Due diligence is not contemplated at the stage of preliminary evaluation, but rather after the award of the tender, by virtue of section 83 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. Since due diligence is not statutorily required at that stage, and as the tender document did not provide for it, its use amounted to introduction of a layer of evaluation, beyond that provided under the preliminary evaluation criteria, and it could lead to exclusion of bidders, at that stage, who would otherwise have satisfied the disclosed preliminary requirements, hence affecting fairness, transparency and predictability. 47.The other matter, flagged by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in its determination, was an inconsistency in the evaluation report, where 1 of the successful bidders, for Class A, Ismax Security Services Limited, had quoted Kshs. 9,013,200.00 for the Nairobi region, but the evaluation committee recommended the said bidder for an award of Kshs. 7,563,200.00, without laying a basis for that. It was noted that there were similar revised award values for the other 3 successful bidders, that is Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited, apparently arising from the staggered allocation of regions, in the tender document, yet no explanation is given, on the methodology adopted for the revision. 48.The applicants, collectively, argue that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, went outside the issues raised by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, and veered into matters that were not pleaded. Apart from what I have discussed above, about section 59 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, all the other matters considered and discussed by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in its determination, were around the second issue raised in the request for review, and that is about the evaluation process undertaken by the procuring entity, which ultimately led to the disqualification of the bid by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, and the award of the tenders, in Class A, to Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited. None of the issues, considered by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in its decision, with respect to the second issue, went outside what was pleaded. 49.The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board considered the tender document, as against the evaluation report, with respect to the evaluation of the bid by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, and the other bids, to arrive at the finding that the tender document had the principal weakness, which tainted the entire evaluation process. The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board did not purport to audit the entire procurement process, rather the issue raised, around the evaluation, necessitated an examination of the entire evaluation exercise, to determine whether or not the bid by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited had been subjected to a proper evaluation, based on the criteria set out in the tender document, and in compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and Article 227 of the Constitution. 50.On the matter of Hounslow Security Limited, with respect to not being afforded an opportunity to be heard, before its award was nullified, I note that the request for review was not on the award of tenders in Class B, where Hounslow Security Limited fell, but Class A, where it did not. Riley Falcon Security Services Limited was not complaining about the awards in Class A, and was not challenging the award to Hounslow Security Limited. That being the case, the issue of Hounslow Security Limited being made a party to the proceedings, before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, by Riley Falcon Security Services Limited, did not arise, neither was it possible for the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board to issue a notice to Hounslow Security Limited, for it was not apparent, until determination, that the award to Hounslow Security Limited was to be affected. Upon arriving at the finding that the entire evaluation process was faulty, for the fault stemmed from the tender document itself, upon the evaluation of the bids, whether for Class A or Class B, the axe had to fall where it fell, and affect the 2 classes, regardless of whether those falling under Class B were party to the proceedings or not, and whether they had been heard or not. 51.The issue of the severability of the Class A and Class B awards was raised. I believe that I have addressed that in the foregoing paragraph. The entire tendering process was founded on a single tender document. The inconsistencies, identified by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, in the said tender document, therefore, went into the integrity of the entire document, and applied to the tendering processes with respect to both Classes A and B awards. The dispute, in PPARB No. 90 of 2026, was about or turned on the evaluation conducted pursuant to the provisions of the same tender document. An adverse finding, on the flaws identified in the said document, naturally affected the entire process, regardless of the class of the award. 52.In the end, I am not persuaded that the prayers sought, in the consolidated applications, are adequately substantiated or established, and I find and hold that the said applications have not reached the threshold for grant of the prayers sought. It has not been established that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted illegally or in excess of its jurisdiction, or its decision was irrational or unreasonable, or it adopted a procedure, in the lead up to the determination of the matter before it, which was unfair. I, hereby, therefore, disallow and dismiss the said applications. The temporary or interim orders, made in the various files, are hereby discharged. The consolidated applications are disposed of in those terms. Each party shall bear its own costs. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT NAIVASHA, ON THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2026.W MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMr. Chrissy Mwenda, Advocate, for Kenya Power and Lighting Company PLC.Mr. Kariuki, instructed by the Attorney General, for the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board.Ms. Mudeizi, instructed by ROM Advocates LLP, for Riley Falcon Security Services Limited.Mr. Sang, instructed by Chege & Sang, Advocates for Ismax Security Services Limited, Lavington Security Services Limited, Spyeagle Security Services Limited and Sumich Solutions Limited.Ms. Kivote, instructed by Kabuthia Kamau & Associates, Advocates for Hounslow Security Limited.