The Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) has been cleared to contest a ruling that ordered it to pay Sh201 million to an Israeli contractor, after the Court of Appeal allowed the State agency to lodge an appeal out of time.
In granting the application, the court held that SBI International Holdings had failed to show it would suffer serious or irreparable harm if KeNHA was allowed to challengee decision. The disputed Sh201 million is one of several claims the contractor has lodged against the roads authority.
KeNHA told the court it did not appeal the original ruling issued in March last year because it only became aware of the decision after the deadline for filing an appeal had already passed. The agency argued that enforcing the payment without allowing an appeal would expose it to significant financial loss, noting that the money would be paid from public funds.
In a ruling delivered on January 30, the court allowed KeNHA’s application and directed the authority to file and serve a notice of appeal within 14 days, followed by the full record of appeal within 45 days. The order KeNHA is seeking to overturn was issued on March 21, 2025, when the Deputy Registrar of the High Court directed the agency to pay SBI International Holdings Sh201 million plus interest.
Also Read: Kenya Power Seeks 100MW of Ugandan Hydropower to Meet Rising Electricity Demand
KeNHA said it was unhappy with the entire decision and intended to challenge it in full. The application was opposed by the firm’s managing director, Gilad Mishni, who argued that KeNHA had been properly served with court papers but failed to file a defence within the required 14 days, prompting the court to enter judgment in favour of the contractor. He also pointed out that KeNHA’s attempt to have the dispute referred to arbitration had been dismissed by the High Court in October 2024.
SBI International Holdings maintained that KeNHA would not suffer any prejudice, describing the dispute as falling under a “pay now, argue later” arrangement for completed road works. The Court of Appeal, however, found that although KeNHA filed its application about 56 days late, the delay was not excessive and could be reasonably excused.
