A Nairobi contractor has moved to the High Court seeking orders to halt the award of a Sh7.6 billion public tender for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Line 5 project, warning that delays threaten its business prospects.
Beyond Trading Company Limited has accused the Kenya Urban Roads Authority (Kura) of proceeding with a contested procurement process despite an unresolved constitutional petition.
The dispute is linked to a $59 million (Sh7.6 billion) tender funded by the Export-Import Bank of Korea under the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF).
The project, aimed at easing traffic congestion in Nairobi, involves constructing a 10.5-kilometre BRT line along Outer Ring Road, three river bridges, two overpass bridges, 13 BRT stations, new footbridges and drainage systems, with completion expected within two years.
Beyond Trading, which was one of the firms interested in the contract, alleges the procurement process was flawed and unconstitutional.
Documents show that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) rejected an application filed by CK Solution Co. Ltd – jointly bidding with Kumkang Construction Company Ltd and Beyond Trading – in June 2025. The applicants alleged discrimination, arguing that Kura restricted the tender to firms from the Republic of Korea.
The company is now seeking conservatory orders to prevent Kura from awarding the tender pending the court’s determination of its petition.
Its lawyer argued that without intervention, Kura may finalise the tender before the case is heard, rendering the petition meaningless.
Court records indicate that the petition was filed in June 2025 alongside an application to halt the procurement, but interim relief was denied in favour of an expedited hearing.
Delays later arose after Beyond Trading’s former lawyers failed to submit filings, prompting the appointment of new advocates. The court extended deadlines and scheduled January 27, 2026, for further directions.
Despite these delays, Beyond Trading claims Kura continued with the procurement process, risking irreversible harm to its business.
‘The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm, including the loss of a legitimate business opportunity,’ their lawyer stated. The firm maintains that monetary compensation would be insufficient, citing constitutional guarantees of fair procurement.
Kura and PPARB oppose the application, asserting compliance with procurement laws and warning that halting the project would disrupt critical infrastructure development.
The court is now expected to balance the urgency of the application against the risk of project delays, assessing whether the petition raises a valid case and whether inaction would cause irreparable harm.