The suspension will last until petitions challenging the award are both heard and determined.
In a notice to Mumias receiver manager, Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao (Rao), PPARB stated that a Request of Review was filed with the board in respect to the leasing and operating of assets belonging to the troubled miller.
"Under Section 168 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015, the procurement proceedings are hereby suspended, and no contract shall be signed between the Procuring Entity and the tenderer awarded the contract unless the Appeal has been finalized," the notice stated.
In a separate high Court ruling Justice
"It is clear that if a contract is entered into as apprehended, the proceedings here-in would be rendered nugatory. On that basis, I grant stay in terms of prayer 5 of the chamber summons", ordered
In the court papers dated
It further argued that there was lack of transparency in the manner in which the bidding process was conducted, arguing that upon submitting the bid and attending tender opening, the firm never heard from the receiver manager "either within 21 days stipulated under the law or at all" , until when it learnt from the press on or about
"The 1st Respondent failed to give all the Bidders an open and transparent opportunity at winning the Bid, thus compromising the integrity, fairness, transparency and accountability of the process in violation of the
Tumaz further argued that the process was so secretive that it was impossible to know who won the tender.
According to the court papers, Tumaz had the highest bid of Shs 27.6 billion against Sarrai's Ksh11.5 billion for the 20-year lease .
"The defendant's (Rao's) decision to disclose only the financial aspects of the bid is illegal, procedurally unfair and violated the plaintiff's legitimate expectation and the principles of natural justice."
"The defendant failed to open the various bids in the presence of the bidders as a result of which it is not possible to ascertain whether or not the documents submitted by the bidders were responsive or not," the suit papers indicated.
Tumaz further stated that the KCB-appointed receiver manager violated its right to information by failing to notify it of the outcome of its bid.
"To date, no reasons and/or explanation from the 1st Respondent ( Rao )has been issued to the Applicant to inform that Applicant that its bid was unsuccessful or to state that its bid was incomplete and or non-responsive," the firm stated.
Another firm, Kruman-Finances which had the second highest bid of Ksh19.7 billion has also moved to court to challenge the lease.
The seizure of the two key assets further complicated the leasing process which had listed those assets as part of the leasing tender.
It is not clear if the bidders were notified of the changes in the tender offer by Rao, after the seizure of the two assets.
The miller was placed under receivership by
Copyright Capital FM. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com)., source