A High Court ruling has dealt a KES 1 billion blow to KEMSA, overturning a procurement award and throwing the supply of life-saving HIV drugs into uncertainty.

The Kenya Medical Supplies Authority (KEMSA) has suffered a major legal setback after the High Court overturned a contentious tender award for HIV/AIDS antiretrovirals (ARVs). The decision, delivered this week, nullifies a previous clearance by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) and exposes the agency to potential liabilities exceeding KES 1 billion.

The dispute centers on a contract that had been awarded to Hetero Labs Limited but was fiercely contested by rival bidder Pharmachoice Pharmaceuticals. The court’s intervention has effectively frozen the procurement process, raising fears of looming stockouts for millions of patients dependent on these life-saving drugs.

The Legal Quagmire

The court found that the procurement process was marred by procedural irregularities. While the PPARB had initially dismissed Pharmachoice’s complaints regarding tax compliance certificates, the High Court ruled that the exclusion of the local bidder was unlawful and that KEMSA had failed to adhere to the strict provisions of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.

“This is not just about paperwork; it is about the integrity of the supply chain,” the ruling implied. The cancellation means KEMSA must potentially restart the process or pay damages, delaying the arrival of critical medicines.

• The Cost: KEMSA faces legal costs and damages estimated at KES 1 billion.
• The Impact: The Global Fund-backed programme for ARVs is now in limbo.
• The Patient: 1.4 million Kenyans living with HIV face anxiety over supply continuity.

A Recurring Nightmare

For KEMSA, this is yet another headline in a saga of procurement scandals. The agency has struggled to shake off the ghost of the "COVID Billionaires" era. This latest court loss reinforces the perception of systemic incompetence in the management of healthcare tenders.

What Next?

KEMSA must now scramble to implement emergency procurement measures to avert a crisis. However, the legal defeat sends a stern warning: in the rush to procure, the rule of law cannot be a casualty. For the patients waiting at the pharmacy window, the legal arguments matter less than the medicine on the shelf—medicine that is now delayed by a gavel’s strike.