Court clears Sh836 million cover for civil servants

The High Court yesterday overturned the public procurement board's decision that awarded a Sh836 million insurance tender to UAP Life Assurance Limited.

The ruling is good news for 400,000 civil servants, including police and prison officers.

It means that in case of death, their families will be compensated and burial expenses catered for.

Joint bid

The tender had been floated by the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) on behalf of the Government last year.

Britam Insurance Limited and Pioneer Assurance Company submitted a joint bid and won the tender in December last year.

The agreement was sealed in January this year.

Half-way through the contract, the Public Procurement and Review Board (PPARB) cancelled it and awarded it to UAP, arguing that the firm had submitted the lowest bid at Sh797.6 million.

Britam and Pioneer then moved to court to challenge the board's decision.

Yesterday, the court ruled that PPARB unlawfully cancelled the Sh836 million tender.

In his verdict yesterday, High Court judge John Mativo observed that the board ignored the fact that the contract had already been implemented half way.

When the board cancelled the tender, NHIF had already paid Sh418 million as compensation to families of police officers and civil servants who had lost their lives.

The judge ruled that the contract was above board.

In the case, the court heard that PPARB gave the tender to UAP although the firm had not raised complaints on the awarding of the tender to Britam and Pioneer.

It merged that it was CIC Life Insurance Company, and not UAP who lodged complaints with the board.

Set requirements

CIC withdrew its case after the board awarded the tender to UAP.

The acting head of legal services for NHIF Ruth Makallah told the court that it would have been against the rules to award UAP the tender, which called for a joint bid and that CIC did not meet all the requirements.

“The fourth respondent (CIC) who was the applicant before the review board failed to satisfy the technical requirements of the tender as per technical evaluation criteria,” she told the court.

Justice Mativo said: “I am conscious of the fact that am not required to delve into the evidence. But my reading leads to the conclusion that, had the review board carefully applied its mind to the above section and facts, its conclusion would have been different."