The High Court’s Commercial and Tax Division entered judgment against John Fitzgerald Osogo in favour of LJA Associates LLP after finding that the firm was entitled to recover costs certified following taxation of its Advocate-Client Bill of Costs.

The dispute arose from legal services provided by LJA Associates when it represented Osogo before a tribunal appointed under Article 168(5)(b) of the Constitution to investigate the conduct of Justice Philip Kiptoo Tunoi.

The law firm had initially presented a bill of costs amounting to Sh9,074,728 on July 12, 2017, but the amount was substantially reduced by the Deputy Registrar following taxation.

On January 9, 2018, the taxing officer assessed the firm’s legal fees at Sh155,677.50, with a Certificate of Costs subsequently issued on December 16, 2021.

The firm moved to court seeking judgment for the certified amount, arguing that Osogo had failed to settle the fees despite being served with the bill and notice of taxation.

Justice Winnie Narasha Molonko found that the certificate of taxation had neither been challenged nor set aside, making the amount legally recoverable under Section 51(2) of the Advocates Act.

“The certificate of the taxing officer by whom any bill has been taxed shall, unless it is set aside or altered by the Court, be final as to the amount of the costs covered thereby,” the law provides.

Judge Molonko noted that there was no evidence that Osogo had filed a reference challenging the taxation or obtained orders staying or setting aside the certificate.

She further found that the documents presented demonstrated the existence of an advocate-client relationship between the parties, with no dispute over the firm’s retainer.

“The certified amount is therefore final for purposes of Section 51(2),” Judge Molonko ruled.

However, the judge declined the firm’s request for interest at 14 per cent annually dating back to July 12, 2017.

LJA Associates had argued that it was entitled to interest from the date it filed its bill of costs, but the court found that it had failed to demonstrate compliance with Rule 7 of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

The rule requires an advocate to demonstrate that the bill was delivered to the client, one month elapsed without payment, and notice of the intention to charge interest was given before settlement.

The court observed that although the bill was served through registered post on October 6, 2017, the firm had not established that it had notified Osogo of its intention to charge interest before payment.

Nevertheless, the judge ruled that the law firm was entitled to interest at court rates from the date judgment was entered until payment in full.

The court explained that once judgment is entered, the certified costs acquire the character of a judgment debt, attracting interest under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The post Court orders John Osogo to pay lawyer Sh155,677 in legal fees over ex-Judge Philip Tunoi removal case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The three-judge appellate bench dismissed the bank’s appeal against Peter Musya Kiteme, ruling that it violated consumer protection laws by repossessing and selling his Toyota Harrier without obtaining the necessary court approval.

In a judgment delivered on September 25, 2026, Justices A.K. Murgor, K.I. Laibuta and G.W. Ngenye-Macharia upheld findings that Kiteme had paid more than two-thirds of the financed amount, meaning the bank could not repossess or dispose of the vehicle without leave of the High Court.

The dispute arose from an asset finance hire purchase agreement entered into on April 24, 2018, under which the bank financed Sh2.232 million towards the purchase of the Toyota Harrier.

The vehicle had a purchase price of Sh2.95 million, with Kiteme contributing Sh718,000 directly to the dealer.

However, the bank repossessed the vehicle on May 27, 2021, claiming outstanding arrears of Sh455,029.

Kiteme maintained that he subsequently cleared the arrears, auctioneer’s fees and storage charges by June 15, 2021, but the bank declined to release his vehicle.

Instead, the financial institution proceeded to sell the Toyota Harrier to George Njuguna Kamau on September 22, 2021, for Sh1.52 million, without conducting a valuation.

The customer challenged the repossession and sale, arguing that he had already paid more than 85 per cent of the financed amount and that the bank had violated Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed, observing that the law protects consumers who have paid at least two-thirds of their obligations under future performance agreements.

The judges stated that Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that any contractual provision allowing a supplier to repossess or resell goods after a consumer has paid two-thirds or more of the payment obligation is unenforceable without leave of the High Court.

“Accordingly, it follows that, once the statutory threshold was attained, the Appellant bank could not lawfully repossess, seize, or dispose of the goods without first obtaining leave of the High Court,” the judges ruled.

The bank had also argued that it was entitled to consolidate Kiteme’s two hire purchase facilities and recover the vehicle over obligations arising from the separate financing arrangement.

However, the appellate court rejected this argument, noting that the two agreements were separate and distinct and did not expressly provide for consolidation.

The judges observed that although banks generally enjoy the right to combine customer accounts, that power is not absolute.

“The banker’s right to combine accounts is not absolute,” the court stated.

The court further found that the bank had failed to demonstrate any lawful or contractual basis for consolidating the accounts or repossessing the vehicle over obligations arising from another facility.

On compensation, the judges upheld the award of Sh1,777,541.28, subject to deductions specified in the lower court’s judgment, alongside Sh300,000 in exemplary damages.

They noted that the bank had failed to obtain court approval, conduct a valuation before the sale and release the vehicle after the arrears were cleared.

“Given the clear breaches of the law, we cannot fault the courts below for concluding that such conduct warranted an award of exemplary damages,” the judges stated.

The court consequently found no reason to interfere with the lower courts’ awards of interest and costs.

“In sum, there is no merit in the appeal which we hereby dismiss with costs to the Respondent,” the judges ruled.

The decision was delivered at Mombasa.

The post Cooperative Bank loses Court of Appeal battle over unlawful car repossession appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In an application filed before the High Court, COFEK wants conservatory orders barring Mungai from exercising the powers and functions of the state agency’s chairperson pending the hearing and determination of a petition challenging her appointment.

The consumer lobby is also seeking to have the application certified as urgent, arguing that her continued stay in office raises serious constitutional questions concerning integrity, accountability and compliance with the law governing public appointments.

Mungai was appointed chairperson of Athi Water on August 8, 2025, by then Water, Sanitation and Irrigation Cabinet Secretary Eric Mugaa in a gazette notice issued on the same day.

Her appointment followed a reshuffle in which President William Ruto appointed Charles Kamau Karondo to replace her as Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) chairperson, while Mugaa appointed her to take over Karondo’s position at Athi Water.

Through its representative Stephen Mutoro, COFEK argues that Mungai’s appointment was subject to the mandatory requirements of Section 66 and the First Schedule of the Water Act, 2016, as well as constitutional provisions on integrity and suitability for public office.

The organisation says the appointment raises questions about whether the government adequately considered the allegations of conflict of interest that had emerged during her previous tenure at the Communications Authority.

The latest court action follows a September 3, 2026, judgment by the High Court in Constitutional Petition No. E683 of 2024, in which Justice Lawrence Mugambi quashed an advisory opinion issued by the Attorney General concerning the allegations against Mungai.

The judge ruled that investigating allegations of conflict of interest fell within the constitutional mandate of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), rather than the Attorney General’s office.

Justice Mugambi declared that the advisory opinion issued by Solicitor General Shadrack Mose on October 1, 2024, was unconstitutional and had no legal effect.

“The resulting opinion is thus unconstitutional and of no legal effect,” the judge ruled.

However, the court did not make a determination on whether Mungai had actually engaged in conflict of interest, leaving the substantive allegations for investigation by the EACC.

Following the judgment, COFEK lodged a formal complaint with the anti-graft agency on September 4, 2026, seeking investigations into the allegations arising from Mungai’s previous tenure at the Communications Authority.

In a letter dated October 14, 2026, the commission confirmed that it had taken up the complaint for investigation.

The underlying dispute involves allegations surrounding the award of Digital Super Highway project tenders to Nightigale Enterprises Limited, later renamed Nightigale (EA) Limited, a company COFEK links to Mungai’s family through her daughter’s previous shareholding.

COFEK has raised questions about the company’s ownership changes, possible beneficial ownership arrangements and whether conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements were observed during the procurement process.

The federation now argues that the unresolved questions should be considered when determining whether Mungai met the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointment to another public office.

It warns that allowing her to continue exercising the functions of chairperson while the issues remain under investigation risks undermining accountability and integrity in public administration.

The court is being asked to suspend her immediately pending the hearing of the application and subsequently until the main petition is determined.

The allegations against Mungai have not been established as findings of wrongdoing, and the EACC investigation remains a separate process.

The post COFEK moves to court to Suspend Mary Wambui Mungai from Athi Water Agency appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Justice Freda Mugambi dismissed the former Imenti Central MP’s case challenging the bank’s decision to sell the property, ruling that Ecobank had followed the law in exercising its statutory power of sale.

In a judgment delivered on October 2, 2026, Justice Mugambi said the bank had fulfilled its legal obligations before disposing of the property through a public auction in March 2016.

“I therefore find that the Bank lawfully exercised its statutory power of sale and complied with its duty of care under section 97 of the Land Act. I answer Issue 2 in the affirmative,” the judge ruled.

The property, identified as LR No. 13460/19 in Karen, was sold to businessman Opondo Isaac Ochieng for Sh47 million after Imanyara failed to clear loans advanced to him by the bank.

The dispute originated in 2009 when Ecobank extended financial facilities of Sh33.5 million to Imanyara, comprising a Sh11 million term loan and a Sh22.5 million mortgage facility.

The mortgage was intended to finance the construction of a residential house on the Karen property, which was subsequently charged to the bank as security for the facilities.

However, Imanyara fell behind on repayments, prompting the bank to issue a statutory notice in March 2013 demanding payment of the outstanding debt.

The parties later entered negotiations, with the bank giving the lawyer an opportunity to identify a private buyer for the property and use the proceeds to settle the outstanding loan.

In a letter dated June 6, 2013, Ecobank allowed him two months to find a purchaser, warning that it would proceed with recovery measures if no progress was made.

Imanyara argued that the arrangement prevented the bank from proceeding with a public auction, but the judge rejected his interpretation.

The court found that the two-month arrangement had expired on August 6, 2013, without a buyer being presented.

Justice Mugambi observed that the bank had expressly reserved its right to pursue recovery proceedings if the private-sale arrangement did not materialise within the agreed period.

The judge further noted that Imanyara subsequently applied for and accepted an enhancement of his loan facility, signing additional security documents.

Another major issue was whether Ecobank obtained the best price reasonably available when it sold the property.

The bank presented two forced-sale valuations conducted in July and August 2015, placing the property’s value at Sh37 million and Sh36.375 million respectively.

Imanyara, however, relied on a valuation placing the property at Sh76.5 million, arguing that the bank had sold it below its actual value.

Justice Mugambi rejected the argument, noting that the lawyer had failed to produce the valuer who prepared the report to testify.

The judge found that there was no evidence that a higher offer had been rejected or that the bank and auctioneer had colluded to depress the property’s price.

“The burden of showing that the market had risen in that period, and that a better price was reasonably obtainable, rested on him under section 107 of the Evidence Act,” the judge stated.

She added that Imanyara had not presented evidence demonstrating that the property could have fetched a higher price at the time of the auction.

The court also rejected his challenge to the ownership of the property by Ochieng, finding that the businessman had purchased it in good faith and without knowledge of any dispute between Imanyara and the bank.

Ochieng had paid a deposit of Sh11.75 million at the fall of the hammer but failed to clear the remaining balance within the stipulated 90 days.

Ecobank subsequently extended the payment period, allowing him to complete the transaction and settle the purchase price together with a late payment fee of approximately Sh1.9 million.

Imanyara had argued that the delayed payment invalidated the transaction and that the subsequent financing arrangement between Ecobank and the buyer compromised the auction.

However, Justice Mugambi found that the bank had discretion to extend the payment period and that the financing arrangement did not undermine the fairness of the sale.

“The financing could not have influenced the price, which was fixed by the bidding,” the judge ruled.

She further found that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate fraud, collusion or an illegal transaction in the transfer of the property.

On the outstanding loan, the bank had sought Sh91,759,103.66, representing the balance after applying the net proceeds from the auction to Imanyara’s account.

The lawyer challenged the computation, arguing that the bank had violated the in duplum rule under Section 44A of the Banking Act, which limits the amount recoverable from non-performing loans.

However, the court found that Ecobank had produced certified statements of account supporting its computation and that Imanyara had failed to identify specific errors in the records.

“I find the balance of KShs.91,759,103.66 as at 10th July 2017 proved and within the statutory limit,” Justice Mugambi ruled.

The judge, however, declined to award the bank additional contractual and penal interest dating back to July 2017, noting that the claim would exceed the statutory limits.

She instead awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.

In her final orders, Justice Mugambi dismissed Imanyara’s re-amended plaint dated April 13, 2021, and allowed Ecobank’s counterclaim.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the bank for Sh91,759,103.66, with interest at court rates until the amount is fully paid.

Imanyara was also ordered to pay the costs of his suit, Ecobank’s counterclaim and Ochieng’s costs of the proceedings.

The post Lawyer Gitobu Imanyara loses Sh47m Karen property fight as court awards Ecobank Sh91.7m appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Eliud Wachira Limuyu appeared before Principal Magistrate Daisy Mutai, where he denied the charges brought against him by the prosecution.

The prosecution alleged that Limuyu obtained the money from Tonny Ketter by falsely representing that he had the capacity to develop a mobile gaming application and a chemical weapon detector.

The alleged offences are said to have occurred between 2020 and 2024 in Nairobi County.

The prosecution did not oppose the accused’s release on bond or cash bail. However, a lawyer representing the complainant, Chatia Ebwoyele, raised concerns over the safety of the complainant and other potential prosecution witnesses should the accused be released.

Ebwoyele told the court that Limuyu had allegedly threatened the complainant while being held at Muthaiga Police Station, arguing that his release could expose the complainant and other witnesses to possible harm.

The lawyer also challenged the probation officer’s report presented to the court to guide the determination of bail terms, questioning its credibility and completeness.

He argued that the report did not disclose the accused’s place of residence or identify the individuals interviewed by the probation officer before its preparation.

Ebwoyele further questioned how the report could have been prepared within one day, saying the circumstances surrounding its preparation raised suspicion.

Despite the objections, the court exercised its discretion and ordered Limuyu to deposit a cash bail of Sh5 million, alongside two sureties of a similar amount.

The magistrate also granted him an alternative bond of Sh10 million, subject to the provision of one contact person.

The matter will be mentioned on November 10, 2026, for a pre-trial conference.

The post NovaGames Director Charged Over Alleged Sh122 Million Fraud appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Benard Odero Okello of Benard Odero & Company Advocates was arrested at his office at The Westery Building in Westlands after he allegedly resisted a directive to surrender himself to police for questioning.

The arrest followed investigations into a complaint lodged by three Nairobi branch officials of the Kenya County Government Workers Union, who accused the lawyer of forging their signatures on documents filed in Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause No. E068 of 2022.

According to the investigators, Odero presented a purported Change of Signatory & Fee Note Agreement, which indicated that the three complainants had agreed to pay him Sh150 million upon conclusion of a case in which he claimed to have represented them.

However, the union officials denied signing or executing the agreement, prompting investigators to subject the disputed documents to forensic examination.

The documents, together with specimens of the complainants’ known signatures, were submitted to a forensic document examiner for analysis.

The examination established that the signatures appearing on the disputed documents were forged, according to the forensic report.

The findings subsequently formed the basis for a recommendation to prosecute the lawyer on charges of forgery and uttering a false document.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) on September 2, 2026, directed that Odero be charged with two counts of forgery and uttering a false document.

He was subsequently summoned to appear at Parklands Police Station but allegedly failed to honour the directive.

Police then launched a search for the lawyer and eventually traced him to his Westlands office.

His arrest, however, was not without incident.

Investigators said Odero resisted attempts to take him into custody and at one point threatened to jump from the eighth-floor window of his office in an apparent attempt to evade arrest.

Police eventually managed to restrain and arrest him.

According to the investigators, Odero allegedly bit two police officers who were attempting to handcuff him.

The incident has now triggered additional criminal charges against the lawyer, with police expected to prefer counts of resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.

The additional allegations will be presented alongside the forgery-related charges approved by the ODPP.

The case stems from the disputed documents that investigators say were used to support Odero’s claim for the Sh150 million legal fees.

The complainants’ denial that they signed the agreement prompted the forensic examination, which investigators say corroborated their claims that the signatures were not genuine.

Odero is expected to be presented before court to face the charges.

The post Lawyer arrested over Sh150m forgery case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

A single dry-aged piece of Japanese A5 Wagyu has sold for around $3,200.

Regular supermarket ribeye looks like a bargain next to it. So why does aged Wagyu command prices that make even luxury diners blink?

The answer begins with genetics. Authentic Japanese Wagyu comes from four native breeds, overwhelmingly Japanese Black (Kuroge Washu).

These cattle were refined over generations for one trait: extreme intramuscular fat, or marbling.

A5 is the top Japanese grade; only a small percentage of cattle ever reach it.

“The price of wagyu comes down to genetics, time, and precision,” says Golan Haiem, founder of Destination Wagyu.

Time is the second multiplier. Ordinary cattle go to slaughter at 15–24 months.

Wagyu animals are typically raised 28–36 months, often close to three years.

“Their diet is highly controlled, often grain-finished for over 400 days,” Haiem explains.

That long, high-energy diet of grains, rice straw and carefully selected forage produces the snowflake-like fat that gives Wagyu its rich, buttery texture and clean finish.

Extra months mean extra feed, extra labor, extra risk and a delayed payday for farmers.

Japan’s limited land and high labor costs keep production small-scale.

Cattle live low-stress lives, spacious housing, constant monitoring, no growth hormones.

Each animal is traced with a unique ID that records lineage back three generations.

Japan banned live-animal exports decades ago to protect the bloodlines.

The result is genuine scarcity: only a sliver of production ever leaves the country, and every kilogram that does carries certification, cold-chain and tariff costs.

“Importing real Japanese wagyu adds even more cost because of limited supply, certifications, and shipping requirements,” Haiem notes.

Global demand keeps rising. Supply cannot.

Then comes aging. Dry-aging Wagyu takes an already costly product and makes it rarer still.

Over 21–45 days (sometimes far longer) in a controlled chamber, moisture evaporates 10–20 percent weight loss is common, while enzymes tenderize the meat and concentrate flavor into nutty, funky, almost cheese-like notes.

The dried outer crust must be trimmed away, cutting yield again.

Facilities, energy and expertise add more cost.

One well-known YouTube butcher dry-aged an A5 Wagyu picanha and later remarked that the piece was now worth $3,000.

“The results are now the ones you could expect,” he said.

The most famous example of the price ceiling is Matsusaka Wagyu.

In 2002 one cow sold at auction for roughly $400,000.

Its fat melts at an astonishingly low 12°C.

That is the extreme end of a spectrum that already starts at $120–$300 per pound for A5 steaks in the United States.

Is it worth it? Haiem is blunt: “If you’re looking for something unique and high quality, yes. It justifies the price.”

Chefs often serve it in small portions precisely because the richness is overwhelming in large bites.

The fat is higher in monounsaturated fats than ordinary beef, the texture is unlike anything else, and the flavor lingers.

For most people it remains a once-in-a-lifetime indulgence.

For those who can afford it, aged Wagyu is not just dinner.

It is the most expensive, most pampered, most precisely engineered piece of meat on Earth.

The signature snowflake marbling of A5 Wagyu — the visual reason the price soars.

Fresh versus dry-aged Wagyu: moisture loss and flavor concentration come at a steep yield cost.

Inside a Japanese Wagyu barn — small-scale, high-care production that cannot be rushed.

The post Why Aged Wagyu Is the World’s Most Expensive Beef appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a detailed decision rendered by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) directed the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to correct, clarify and amend various sections of the tender document before publishing a fresh version and inviting bidders to submit new bids.

“The Respondents are hereby directed to review and make the necessary corrections, clarifications and/or amendments to the Tender Document in accordance with the findings of the Board contained in this Decision,” the Board chaired by Vice Chairperson Alice Oeri

The decision affects Tender No. IEBC/OIT/01/2026-2027, which covers the supply, delivery, installation, testing, commissioning, support and maintenance of the IEMS, including hardware equipment and accessories.

The tender had been scheduled to close on September 1, but the procurement process was automatically suspended after Galadirel Investments Limited filed a request for review before the Board on August 14.

The Board found several deficiencies in the tender document, particularly provisions governing the technical evaluation of bids.

The tribunal found that IEBC had failed to clearly set out how bidders would be scored under several technical evaluation criteria.

It singled out the technical evaluation criteria on pages 34 to 36 of the tender document, saying bidders could not determine in advance how their scores would be calculated within the point ranges provided.

“The Tender Document does not indicate the score attributable to each of these attributes, nor does it provide a scale or objective benchmarks for distinguishing, for example, a score of two per cent (2%) from seven per cent (7%) or ten per cent (10%),” the Board ruled.

It added: “tenderers cannot ascertain in advance how the evaluator will translate the extent or combination of the stated attributes into a particular score.”

The Board said the ambiguity was significant because the technical evaluation carried a total of 100 points and bidders were required to attain a minimum score to proceed.

It therefore found that a bidder’s ability to qualify could potentially depend on criteria whose scoring methodology had not been objectively disclosed.

The tribunal also questioned the use of both a “Max Score” column and a separate “Compliance (Y/N)” parameter in the evaluation criteria.

According to the Board, the tender did not make it sufficiently clear whether a bidder marked “Yes” for compliance would automatically receive the maximum score or would merely qualify for further assessment.

The tribunal also faulted IEBC over a mandatory preliminary requirement requiring bidders to provide a “certified copy of tax compliance/exemption certificate or equivalent.”

It found the words “or equivalent” created uncertainty, particularly because the tender was an open international procurement involving prospective foreign bidders.

The Board further found ambiguity in Clause 8 of the tender document, which referred to both post-qualification and non-post-qualification without clearly stating which procurement method would apply.

However, the tribunal rejected some of Galadirel’s complaints.

It dismissed the company’s claim that IEBC had unlawfully imposed a 20 per cent performance security, finding that the Special Conditions of Contract actually prescribed a 10 per cent security, which was consistent with Section 142 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.

The Board also rejected the challenge against the Sh30 million tender security, ruling that Galadirel had not demonstrated that the amount exceeded the statutory two per cent ceiling based on the value of the tender.

IEBC had also asked the tribunal to dismiss the case, arguing that Galadirel should first have sought clarification from the Commission under Section 75 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.

The Board rejected the argument and held that it had jurisdiction to determine the dispute under Section 167(1).

However, it cautioned bidders against treating the statutory clarification process under Section 75 “as an optional procedural formality.”

However, the Board did not uphold Galadriel’s allegation that the tender had been tailored to favour Miru Systems.

In its final orders, the tribunal allowed Galadirel’s request for review in part and directed IEBC to undertake the necessary corrections, clarifications and amendments identified in the decision.

After making the changes, IEBC has been ordered to publish a new and compliant tender document and give prospective bidders time to consider the amendments and prepare their bids.

The Board specified that the period given to bidders must not be less than seven days.

“Upon undertaking the review and making the necessary corrections and/or amendments, the Respondents shall issue and publish a new and compliant Tender Document and accord prospective tenderers such period as may be prescribed by law, provided that such period shall not be less than seven (7) days to consider the amendments and prepare and submit their tenders,” the Board said.

The Board further gave IEBC permission to seek technical assistance from the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) and ordered that a copy of the decision be placed before the Authority’s Director-General.

The post Tribunal Faults IEBC Tender, Orders Fresh Sh6.5bn IEMS Bid Ahead of 2027 Election appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The clarification came on Sunday August 30,2026 after reports linked Nalitex Limited to the procurement of the new Kenya Police Service General Duty uniforms, raising questions about the company’s involvement in a multi-billion-shilling government contract.

But the NPS strongly rejected the claims, saying Nalitex was never involved in the procurement process.

“The NPS is particularly concerned that the media reports have introduced an entity referred to as Nalitex Limited into the procurement and manufacture of the new police uniform, yet the said entity does not feature anywhere in the NPS process relating to its development, selection, procurement or manufacture,” the Service said in a statement.

It added: “This association is false and malicious.”

The police service said Bedi Investments was lawfully awarded the contract after a process that involved local textile manufacturers, development of uniform standards, submission and evaluation of samples and public participation.

“For clarity, the new police uniforms are being manufactured by M/s Bedi Investments Limited, which was lawfully awarded the contract by the National Police Service,” NPS said.

According to the Service, four Kenyan manufacturers, Bedi Investments, Rivatex East Africa, Thika Textile Mills and Sunflag Textiles & Knitwear Mills, were invited to submit samples under the Government’s Buy Kenya, Build Kenya initiative.

Only Bedi Investments and Rivatex submitted samples within the stipulated period, with Bedi’s sample eventually selected following evaluation and public participation and approved through the relevant security structures.

The subsequent procurement was conducted under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, and applicable regulations.

The controversy has nevertheless placed a spotlight on the justification for the new uniforms and the role attributed to the Maraga task force.

The NPS said the decision to change the General Duty uniform preceded procurement and arose from broader police reforms.

Officers and members of the public had raised concerns about the previous uniform, prompting the Maraga-led team to recommend reverting to earlier uniform colours as part of a wider process of developing a new design.

President William Ruto, who unveiled the new uniforms at the National Police College in Kiganjo on Friday, also described the attire as a product of consultations contained in the police reform process.

“The graduating officers will be the first to wear the new uniform,” Ruto said, announcing that it would subsequently be rolled out progressively to General Duty officers.

But there is a crucial legal wrinkle to the Government’s invocation of the Maraga task force.

The High Court did not declare the entire Maraga task force unconstitutional, contrary to a possible reading of the ruling.

In Benjamin v Attorney General & six others; Maraga & 23 others (Interested Parties), Justice Bahati Mwamuye in April 2025 found that some of the task force’s terms of reference encroached on the constitutional mandate of the National Police Service Commission.

The court specifically held that terms dealing with reviewing and recommending improvements to police terms and conditions of service, welfare and related matters fell within the NPSC’s mandate.

It declared the decision establishing the task force unconstitutional only to the extent that it conferred those specific functions on the task force, and further declared that recommendations resulting from those three terms of reference were unconstitutional, null and void.

The ruling therefore did not wipe out every recommendation made by the Maraga team.

Indeed, the task force had broader terms of reference concerning legal, policy, administrative, institutional and operational reforms, areas the court recognised were not necessarily confined to the NPSC’s constitutional mandate.

On uniforms specifically, the Maraga team had recommended the establishment of a National Uniforms Committee to approve standards, colours and quality of uniforms for disciplined and security services.

It also recommended that the NPS revert to its former uniform colours while work began on a new design.

This distinction now sits at the heart of the unfolding uniform saga: while the NPS is relying on the broader police reform process to explain why the new attire was introduced, the court ruling places constitutional limits on which Maraga task force recommendations can lawfully be relied upon.

For the NPS, however, the procurement itself remains above board.

The Service said it welcomes scrutiny of public procurement but insisted that such scrutiny must be based on accurate and verifiable information.

As officers begin wearing the new light-blue shirts and dark navy trousers from tomorrow, the uniform debate is therefore shifting from the question of who made it to the bigger questions of how the contract was awarded, how much taxpayers will ultimately pay and which recommendations of the Maraga reforms remain legally enforceable.

The post Police uniform storm: NPS names Bedi, invokes Maraga reforms despite court ruling appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The national carrier beat major continental rivals to retain the top award during the 33rd World Travel Awards Africa and Indian Ocean Gala Ceremony held in Zanzibar, Tanzania, on Friday, August 28.

KQ was also named Africa’s Leading Airline Economy Class 2026, while its flagship Pride Lounge at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport was crowned Africa’s Leading Airline Lounge.

Its inflight magazine, Msafiri, completed the four-award haul after being named Africa’s Leading Inflight Magazine 2026.

The honours recognise different parts of the passenger experience, from the airline’s overall proposition and economy cabin to the airport lounge and the magazine accompanying travellers during their journeys.

The overall airline award is particularly significant for KQ, which has retained the continental title for a third consecutive year, having also won it in 2024 and 2025.

The World Travel Awards listed Air Algérie, EgyptAir, Ethiopian Airlines, Kenya Airways, Royal Air Maroc, RwandAir, South African Airways, TAAG Angola Airlines and Tunisair among the nominees for the overall airline category.

Kenya Airways Acting Chief Executive Officer Capt. George Kamal said the recognition reflected the efforts of the airline’s employees and the confidence of its customers and industry partners.

“These awards are an important recognition of the commitment of our people and the confidence placed in Kenya Airways by our customers and industry partners. We are deeply grateful to the travellers and travel professionals whose confidence has made this recognition possible,” Kamal said.

The awards come as the national carrier continues efforts to strengthen its operations and expand its international footprint amid mounting pressures facing the global aviation industry.

Kenya Airways said it currently serves 45 destinations worldwide, including 37 in Africa. Through its membership of the SkyTeam Alliance and partnerships, the carrier gives customers access to more than 1,060 destinations in 173 countries.

KQ Chief Commercial and Customer Officer Julius Thairu said the four awards represented a vote of confidence in the airline’s role in connecting Africa to the rest of the world through its Nairobi hub.

“For Kenya Airways, the four awards are a vote of confidence in the airline’s role in connecting Africa to the world through its Nairobi hub and in the people, service and distinctly African hospitality behind the ‘Pride of Africa’ brand,” Thairu said.

The recognition also extends a strong run for Msafiri, which has now won the Africa’s Leading Inflight Magazine title for five consecutive years.

The publication has held the award since 2022.

The Pride Lounge award, meanwhile, gives KQ recognition beyond its aircraft, highlighting the airport experience it offers passengers travelling through its Nairobi hub.

KQ’s success in the economy-class category also marks a return to the top after EgyptAir won the award in 2025 and Ethiopian Airlines took it in 2024.

Kenya Airways previously won the economy-class title in 2023.

The airline’s latest haul comes against a difficult financial backdrop.

Kenya Airways reported a pre-tax loss of Sh15.92 billion for the first half of 2026, up from Sh12.17 billion during the same period last year.

The carrier has also been grappling with rising fuel costs, aircraft maintenance challenges and shortages of spare parts and engines.

The World Travel Awards recognition therefore offers KQ a significant boost at a time when it is seeking to improve its financial position and strengthen its competitiveness.

The awards were not, however, a clean sweep for Kenya Airways.

Ethiopian Airlines won Africa’s Leading Airline – Business Class, while RwandAir was named Africa’s Leading Cabin Crew.

Julius Nyerere International Airport in Tanzania was also named Africa’s Leading Airport.

Nairobi also emerged a winner, being named Africa’s Leading Business Travel Destination for the eighth consecutive year, further reinforcing the Kenyan capital’s position as a regional aviation and business hub.

For Kenya Airways, the Zanzibar ceremony provided recognition across several points of the passenger journey, from the aircraft cabin and lounge to the magazine and the airline’s wider brand.

The four trophies give the national carrier fresh recognition as it seeks to reinforce its Pride of Africa identity while navigating the financial and operational challenges confronting the airline.

The post Kenya Airways Wins Four World Travel Awards appeared first on Insider Bits News.