High Court orders Kenya Power to execute Sh6billion Hexing-Magnate Ventures smart meter contract

The High Court has directed Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) to proceed with the execution of a Sh6billion smart electricity meters contract that had previously been cancelled, delivering a major legal victory to the Chinese manufacturer and its local partner whose bids had been annulled in an earlier procurement dispute.

The contract awarded to Hexing Technology in partnership with Magnate Ventures Limited— was part of a broader initiative by Kenya Power to modernise its metering system by supplying millions of smart meters to improve billing accuracy, reduce losses and curb electricity theft.

However, the rollout hit a legal snag after the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) cancelled awards in two categories of the tender, ordering fresh bidding on the grounds that the procurement process allegedly lacked transparency and fairness.

In a judgment delivered in January 2026, High Court Judge Roselyn Aburili ruled that PPARB had overstepped its authority by reopening issues that had already been conclusively settled by an earlier court ruling by Justice John Chigiti, which validated the original tender process.

Instead, Justice Aburili said the board’s decision to nullify awards in Categories 2 and 3 and direct re‑tendering defied the binding orders of a superior court, and therefore infringed on the legal rights of the successful bidders.

“By annulling the awards … the board reopened and re‑determined issues that had already been conclusively settled by a superior court,” Justice Aburili stated, adding that the fresh tender would have violated the judicial hierarchy and undermined the rule of law.

Hexing Technology had argued that PPARB’s move to cancel the awards disregarded binding court orders that explicitly prohibited re‑tendering.

The company further contended that another Chinese firm, Chint Meters and Electric Kenya, which urged the board to have the contract re‑advertised, was not even a valid tenderer and therefore lacked the legal standing to challenge the process.

Magnate Ventures echoed similar concerns, arguing that the review board erred in its interpretation of due diligence requirements, particularly by suggesting that physical inspections of all manufacturing facilities were mandatory even for firms that had previously supplied meters to KPLC.

In contrast, PPARB maintained that it acted within its statutory mandate, arguing that the original tender process lacked transparency and cost‑effectiveness and failed to comply with the requirements of the tender documents.

It highlighted issues such as inconsistent application of evaluation criteria and the absence of a detailed evaluation summary.

Kenya Power, which originally defended the tender process, told the court that it urgently needed the smart meters — estimating demand at around 420,000 units — and that repeated legal battles had delayed implementation and increased costs.

The utility said it had already allocated a portion of the meters to local dealers and suppliers with ready stock and that the ongoing disputes had already caused losses exceeding Sh7billion.

The ruling paves the way for Kenya Power to move ahead with the smart metering programme, a key component of its strategy to modernise the national power distribution network and strengthen revenue collection mechanisms.

However, it also underscores the complex legal and procedural challenges that often accompany large utility procurement contracts in Kenya.