The High Court in Mombasa has temporarily blocked the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) from reallocating a Sh15 billion rice import tender after it revoked bids awarded to 17 companies and sought to hand the entire quota to a single firm.
Justice Jairus Ngaah issued conservatory orders on Thursday, stopping AFA from interfering with a 250,000-tonne rice quota allocated through the Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC).
He ruled that the quota must not be given to private entities outside the tender process.
The orders suspended AFA’s decision of September 10, 2025, which purported to cancel allocations made by KNTC in its July 29 letter, as well as a September 9 award to the 17 firms.
“The Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA), whether by itself, its agents, servants, or assigns, is hereby restrained from issuing, reallocating, or otherwise purporting to allocate the 250,000 MT rice importation quota to any private individuals or entities outside of the lawful tender process conducted by KNTC pursuant to Gazette Notice No. 10353 of 28th July 2025 and the Court ruling of 19th August 2025,” Justice Ngaah said.
The case was filed by traders Ibrahim Mohamed and Abdiaziz Noor, who moved to court under a certificate of urgency. They argued that AFA’s attempt to hand the quota to undisclosed private firms was unlawful.
They listed AFA, KNTC, the Cabinet Secretaries for Agriculture, Trade and Treasury, Kenya Revenue Authority, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Control, and the Attorney General as respondents, while the 17 successful bidders were included as interested parties.
Their lawyer, Abdullahi Yussuf, told the court that KNTC had invited 60 qualified importers, with 17 emerging successful.
“On September 10, 2025, AFA unlawfully revoked the tender allocation by KNTC, which led to the cancellation of the tender we won after competitive bidding on September 17, 2025,” Abdullahi said.
He warned that unless restrained, AFA could irregularly reallocate the entire quota before October 31, 2025, undermining lawful court orders and jeopardising transparency in food imports.
Justice Ngaah certified the petition as urgent and directed the parties to respond before the next mention on October 23, 2025. He noted that AFA’s decision risked defeating an earlier ruling by the High Court in Kerugoya, which capped rice imports at 250,000 tonnes.
“In the meantime, in order to preserve the substratum of the petition, and to the extent that the respondents’ impugned actions may frustrate or compromise the effect of the order of this Honourable Court sitting at Kerugoya in High Court Petition Number E 009 of 2025, conservatory orders pending the hearing of the application or until such further orders are made by this Honourable Court are hereby granted,” he said.
The dispute has also drawn attention from Pakistan, a key rice exporter to Kenya. The Pakistani High Commission wrote to KNTC seeking clarity on the cancellation and on rules guiding exporters in Kenya.
“The High Commissioner further seeks clarification on the specific procedures and guidelines governing the issuance and administration of this quota to enable Pakistani exporters to engage with the Kenyan market with confidence and clarity,” the September 12 letter stated.
Initially, KNTC planned to import 500,000 tonnes of grade-one rice, but a case filed by farmers in Kerugoya led Justice Edward Muriithi to limit imports to 250,000 tonnes by October 31, 2025.
AFA had then attempted to replace 16 of the vetted firms with four companies—Zyan Agencies, Ecoview Commodities, Njema Commodities and Solid Commodities—that had not taken part in the August bidding process.
The imports, valued at Sh14.8 billion, are part of Kenya’s annual duty-free strategy to bridge a rice deficit of about 800,000 tonnes.
The petitioners cautioned that bypassing competitive bidding would harm public interest and fair competition.
“The actions have the likely effect of concentrating market power, reducing competition in wholesale and retail markets and exposing consumers and local millers to exploitation through possible price inflation,” they said.
They also argued that direct allocation without advertising risked favouritism and elite capture, undermining public confidence and constitutional values. They added that AFA gave no reasons for revoking the bids or publishing criteria for its decision despite the quota’s national importance.