Bidder in Sh2.5billion carbon credit Kengen tender dispel bankruptcy claims
Days after the High Court halted the Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen’s) Sh2.5billion carbon credit sale tender, fresh claims have now emerged questioning Munja Trading Limited consortium’s financial capacity further deepening the controversy over the disputed procurement process.
In his ruling, High Court judge Justice John Chigiti issued interim stay orders barring the joint venture of Munja Trading and Marwil Energy from implementing the tender and directed PPRAB to revisit the issue.
Consequently, in its ruling dated January 9, 2025, PPARB committee chaired by Jessica M’mbetsa accused Kengen of acting unfairly and directed the Managing Director Eng. Peter Njenga’s led institution to address concerns raised by Sintmond Group Limited, the bidder who lost out on a Sh2.5billion tender for the sale of 6.38 million carbon credits.
PPARB ordered KenGen to formally respond to a letter sent by Sintmond Group Limited in September 2025, following due diligence on the bidders.
The procurement watchdog faulted KenGen for failing to reply, saying the company acted unfairly and denied the bidder a legitimate opportunity to be heard.
Insiders have also disclosed that in the deal, Kengen is bound to lose USD 3.57million (Sh460million) revenue to the government in the now High Court and PPARB indicted tender award process in favour of Munja Trading Limited venture at USD 19.64million (Sh2.5billion), against Sintmond Group Limited’s USD 23.21million (2.9billion).
When contacted for comment via mail and short text message, KenGen MD was not reachable.
“I’m out of office until 19th Jan 2026,” a mail auto-generated reply read in part. However, when reached again yesterday, no response was forthcoming by the time of going to publication.
And while dispelling claims of alleged questionable financial soundness of Munja Trading Limited joint venture with Marwil Energy Holdings AS following a whistleblowing petition, Munja Trading CEO Andreas Svoor blamed what he termed as “a coordinated and defamatory campaign driven by anonymous actors” for allegedly being behind the whistleblowing claims.
Svoor further blamed the delayed implementation of the project by six months “to legal actions initiated by a dissatisfied competitor” despite the process having been indicted by both the High Court and PPARB.
On its part, following High Court stay orders, PPARB faulted KenGen for failing to reply to Sintmond Group Limited concerns, saying the company acted unfairly and denied the bidder a legitimate opportunity to be heard.
“We find that the respondents (KenGen) indeed violated the applicant’s (Sintmond Group Ltd) legitimate right to be heard, given the legitimate expectation created by their promise to provide an official response in line with Section 83 of the Act,” the board stated.
The board committee chaired Jessica further directed KenGen to issue a formal response to Sintmond’s letter within seven days and thereafter proceed with the tender for the sale of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs).
This marks the third time the PPARB has handled the matter. The board had earlier nullified the tender before dismissing Sintmond’s application in October, allowing KenGen to proceed with the sale of 6.38 million carbon credits to Munja Trading Limited in a joint venture with Marwil Energy Holding AS.
Sintmond, however, successfully petitioned the High Court, arguing that its right to a fair hearing had been breached setting a backward motion to the tender award process.
On December 19, 2025, the court ruled that the firm was denied a genuine opportunity to present information during the post-award due diligence phase.
“On this ground alone, the application can succeed. The applicant has demonstrated that procedural impropriety and a denial of the right to be heard was violated,” the court stated. Initially, the board dismissed Sintmond’s application, saying the firm failed to demonstrate its capacity to manage a contract of such magnitude.
Sintmond’s bid, valued at $23.2 million (about Sh2.99 billion), was disqualified for lacking independent evidence of successful performance in comparable contracts.
KenGen argued that Sintmond had no prior experience in managing projects of similar scale and that its performance history did not inspire confidence.
“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 to perform the tender,” the board noted.
KenGen had advertised the tender in May last year, requiring bidders to show prior successful participation in emission reduction trading.
Three bids were received: Munja Trading Limited (in joint venture with Marwil Energy Holding AS), Kyoto Network Limited, and Sintmond Group Ltd.
The evaluation committee ranked the Munja-Marwil joint venture as the best evaluated bidder, with a cumulative tender price of $19.6 million (Sh2.53 billion).
Sintmond challenged the outcome, claiming the procuring entity relied on undisclosed due diligence criteria to disqualify its bid.
