Firm asks High Court to halt IEBC Sh6.5b KIEMS kit tender

Tender wars continue to haunt the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission after one of the companies that lost in the Sh6.5 billion tender for the supply of Kenya Integrated Elections Management System (KIEMS) kits for the 2027 polls moved to the High Court over disputed qualification requirements for bidders.

Oilmax Ventures Ltd has now asked the Milimani High Court to stop the ongoing Sh6.5 billion procurement by IEBC after challenging the qualification requirements imposed on firms seeking to supply the election technology.

In its papers, the company is seeking orders to halt the procurement process under Tender No. IEBC/OIT/02/2026-2027 before IEBC proceeds with further stages of the tender.

Oilmax is challenging a September 3, 2026 decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) which dismissed its request for review and upheld three key vendor-capacity requirements contained in the tender document.

The September 3 PPARB decision has already forced IEBC to revisit its election technology procurement after the Board found several deficiencies in the tender document and ordered the electoral commission to review, correct, clarify and amend the tender before re-advertising it.

The Board found that some provisions were not sufficiently clear, certain and objective to enable prospective bidders to understand how their bids would be assessed.

PPARB directed IEBC to issue and publish a new compliant tender document after making the required corrections and amendments, and to give prospective bidders at least seven days to consider the changes and prepare and submit their bids.

The Board also allowed IEBC to seek technical advice and assistance from the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority during the review, while retaining responsibility for the technical specifications with the electoral commission.

Oilmax wants the court to grant it leave to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge the PPARB decision of September 3, 2026, in PPARB Application No. 172 of 2026.

The company is seeking an order of certiorari to quash the decision, particularly the part that dismissed its request for review and upheld three mandatory technical evaluation requirements contained in the tender document.

The disputed requirements relate to similar experience, financial capacity and financial capability.

In its application, Oilmax argues that the disputed requirements should be reconsidered because they do not properly reconcile vendor-capacity qualifications with the tender’s mandatory local-content requirements.

“The applicant seeks to have the three requirements reformulated to reconcile the vendor-capacity qualification criteria with the mandatory local-content requirement contained in the tender document," read the court papers.

The company argues that the requirements should be reformulated to reconcile the vendor-capacity qualification criteria with the mandatory local-content requirement contained in the tender document.

Oilmax also wants the court to issue an order of prohibition restraining IEBC and other respondents from receiving, opening, evaluating, awarding or taking any further steps in the tender based on the three requirements as currently framed.

It wants the court to issue an order of mandamus compelling IEBC to reformulate Requirements No. 2, 3 and 4 in a manner that complies with Articles 10, 27 and 227 of the Constitution and Sections 3, 58(2), 60(1) and 70(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015.

“The applicant wants the court to restrain the respondents from receiving, opening, evaluating, awarding or taking any further step in the tender based on the disputed requirements as presently framed,” the court papers state.

Oilmax has asked the court to certify its application as urgent and have it heard on a priority basis.

The company further wants the grant of leave to operate as a stay of the September 3 PPARB decision, particularly Order (C), which extended the date and time for submission and opening of tenders.

“The applicant further seeks a stay of the September 3, 2026 decision, particularly Order (C), which extended the date and time for submission and opening of tenders, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive application.”

It is also seeking a stay of any further steps in the procurement process pending the hearing and determination of the substantive judicial review application.

The company argues that allowing the procurement to proceed under the disputed requirements would undermine its challenge and the issues it has raised concerning local-content requirements.

Oilmax has also asked the court to award costs of the application.

The case is pending directions before Justice William Musyoka.