A Japanese vehicle inspection firm, Auto Terminal Japan Ltd (ATJ), has won a reprieve after the High Court quashed a decision by the procurement watchdog to debar it from participating in vehicle inspection tenders in Kenya.
The Public Procurement Regulatory Authority had, in a decision in June, debarred the inspection provider from an upcoming tender, accusing the firm of using falsified documents.
The firm stated that there was an upcoming tender for the provision of Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVOC) to standard services, used motor vehicles, mobile equipment, and used spare parts.
ATJ argued that the authority was hellbent on ensuring that the firm did not take part in the tender, through a ‘very well-calculated witch-hunt’.
The firm further said it had served its punishment period after being debarred in 2022 for three years, and revisiting the same case to block it amounted to double jeopardy.
High Court Judge John Chigiti, however, said the argument that the firm had served the debarment period to its conclusion was misplaced.
The judge observed that in December last year, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations stated that investigations into the claims of forgery were still ongoing.
“It is this court’s finding that without a conclusive investigation report to the effect that the documents in the impugned debarment proceedings are fraudulent, then the resultant debarment decision will be ill-informed and irregular,” said the judge.
Justice Chigiti said the investigations by the DCI will conclusively guide the debarment proceedings.
The court stated that a bidder who uses a falsified document exposes themselves to debarment proceedings, and once a document is declared to be falsified, the tenderer cannot use the same document in future tenders.
“It is this court's finding that the fact that a tenderer has served the debarment period, which was informed by an attempt to use falsified documents, does not amount to a sanitization or a legalisation of the falsified documents. Forgery leaves an indelible economic mark on the concerned documents,” said the judge.
In the matter, ATJ moved to court to quash the debarment proceedings delivered by the authority on June 20, 2025.
The firm argued that the regulatory authority did not fully consider its argument and submissions during the proceedings.
ATJ said that the request for debarment filed on April 10, 2025, was based on facts and evidence similar to those raised in another application against it in a decision made in 2022.
The firm added that a rival was engaged in a form of legal warfare, in an attempt to settle business scores, to frustrate its operations, and to ensure that one company maintained the monopoly in the motor vehicle inspection sector.
In opposing the case, the authority submitted that the application for debarment was on the premise that ATJ was a repeat offender who used falsified documents in different tenders.
The regulator said the case was heard as required by law and that ATJ was ably represented during the hearing.
The court heard that the company participated in a tender (Tender KEBS 019/2017-2020) using documents certified by a Firm of Drake & Scott Solicitors.
The firm also submitted a lease Agreement with Itech Auto Finance Limited, dated June 1, 2021, and a lease agreement with a company called JLS Investment Group Limited.
The validity of the documents was challenged, and the Debarment Committee, upon scrutiny, found that the Firm of Drake & Scott Solicitors did not exist in the United Kingdom, and the lease agreements were also found to have been falsified.
Further, the court heard that the company used the same documents in the 2024 tender, hence the proceedings.
In the decision, Justice Chigiti buttressed the fact that public procurement-related contracts should not be entered into on the basis of falsified documents or non-existent companies.
“To allow that would amount to an affront to the rule of law. This would water down our national values and principles of governance,” said the judge.
