The High Court has fined Chai Trading Company Limited Managing Director Dorcas Mugure Mwangi and Head of Procurement Peter Mungai Ksh.300,000 each for contempt of court after finding that the company proceeded with the deployment of Winstar Security despite orders suspending implementation of a disputed security tender.
Justice Moses Ado of the Milimani High Court ruled on October 15, 2026, that the two officials had deliberately breached orders issued on October 28, 2025, and extended on November 4 and November 25, 2025.
The court directed that each official pay the fine within 14 days, warning that failure to comply would result in 30 days’ imprisonment for contempt.
Court Finds Deliberate Breach of Tender Orders
The dispute arose from Tender No. CTCL/127/2025, involving a security contract contested in a case filed by Anthony Manyara and Youth Advocacy Agency against Chai Trading Company Limited and the Kenya Tea Development Agency.
The applicants told the court that, despite the restraining orders, Winstar Security guards had been deployed at the premises, including at the entrance gates and perimeter.
They sought a declaration of contempt against the company’s managing director and head of procurement, as well as orders nullifying the deployment and restoring the previous position.
Chai Trading opposed the application, arguing that Winstar Security had been engaged under emergency, temporary security arrangements rather than through the disputed tender.
The company said the measures were necessary to protect valuable produce belonging to more than 650,000 farmers. It also argued that removing the guards without an alternative arrangement would create a security vacuum.
Judge Rejects Emergency Security Explanation
Justice Ado found that the applicants had established the essential elements of civil contempt, including the existence of clear court orders, the officials’ knowledge of those orders, a breach and deliberate disobedience.
The judge noted that the respondents had acknowledged knowing about the orders, which had been served and extended in court in the presence of their lawyers.
The court also considered photographic evidence showing Winstar Security personnel stationed at the premises.
Justice Ado found that the respondents had failed to provide documentary evidence supporting their claim that the deployment was an independent emergency arrangement. They also did not demonstrate an alternative contractual basis for engaging the security firm.
The judge concluded that the deployment amounted to a deliberate breach of the existing orders.
Winstar Security Deployment Nullified
The court nullified and set aside Winstar Security’s deployment and operational occupation of the premises under or in connection with the disputed tender.
It ordered the respondents to remove the firm’s personnel within the period stated in the ruling, while allowing them to engage National Police Service officers or an independent security provider not connected to the disputed procurement to avoid leaving the premises unprotected.
The court also awarded the applicants Ksh.100,000 in costs, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.
The ruling addresses the contempt application. The underlying dispute over the security tender remains subject to further proceedings.
