Chai MD, procurement head fined Sh300,000 each for defying orders in security tender

Chai MD, procurement head fined Sh300,000 each for defying orders in security tender

The court ordered Dorcas Mugure Mwangi and Peter Mungai to pay the fines within 14 days, warning that each would face 30 days in civil jail if they failed to comply.

Chai Trading Company Limited’s Managing Director, Dorcas Mugure Mwangi and Head of Procurement, Peter Mungai, have been fined Sh300,000 each for defying court orders barring the implementation of a disputed security tender.

High Court Judge Moses Ado found the two officials in willful and deliberate contempt after the company deployed Winstar Security guards at its premises despite orders restraining it from implementing the disputed contract.

The court ordered Mwangi and Mungai to pay the fines within 14 days, warning that each would face 30 days in civil jail if they failed to comply.

Justice Ado also nullified Winstar Security’s deployment and ordered Chai Trading to remove its personnel from the premises within 14 days, while allowing the company to arrange alternative security to prevent a security vacuum.

The ruling followed an application by Anthony Manyara and Youth Advocacy Agency, who accused Chai Trading and the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) of disregarding orders issued on October 28, 2025, and extended on November 4 and 25.

The orders barred the respondents from awarding, executing or implementing Tender No. CTCL/127/2025 pending further court directions.

Latest Stories

The applicants told the court that despite the orders, Winstar Security guards were deployed at the premises, presenting photographs showing the guards manning the gates and perimeter.

Chai Trading opposed the application, arguing that the guards had been engaged under emergency, stop-gap security arrangements to protect valuable tea belonging to more than 650,000 farmers, rather than through the disputed tender.

However, Justice Ado rejected the explanation, faulting the company for failing to provide supporting documents, such as police deployment letters, receipts or service agreements, to demonstrate that the arrangement was independent of the contested procurement.

“Parties cannot be allowed to circumvent the express prohibitions of an injunction by re-characterising the execution of a tender as an ‘emergency measure’ or ‘stop-gap arrangement’,” the judge ruled.

The court also dismissed the respondents’ argument that the applicants lacked legal standing because they were not bidders in the tender.

Justice Ado said the applicants were parties in whose favour the original orders had been issued and were therefore entitled to report their alleged violation.

“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged,” the judge said, citing previous decisions.

The respondents were further ordered to pay the applicants Sh100,000 in costs.