A magistrate’s court in Nairobi has dismissed a suit filed by embattled regional inspection firm EAA Company Ltd challenging its blacklisting from public procurement in Kenya, as authorities probe allegations that the firm used an unregistered lawyer to lodge the case.

Principal magistrate Edgar Kagoni dismissed the suit after finding that EAA left out vital information in a move deemed as aimed to trick the court into suspending the firm’s blacklisting.

Mr Kagoni’s ruling was on an application by Kenya’s Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA), which revealed that EAA failed to notify the magistrate that it had already unsuccessfully petitioned the High Court to suspend the blacklist.

Under Kenyan law, a High Court decision can only be overturned by the same judge who made the call, or a higher authority such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

The PPRA last year blacklisted EAA after finding that the Japanese firm used forged papers to bid for a motor vehicle and spare parts inspection tender floated by the Kenya Bureau of Standards (Kebs) in 2011, 2014 and 2017.

The ban was to last three years.

In December, Mr Kagoni issued orders suspending EAA’s debarment, barely two months after a similar bid by the firm flopped at the High Court.

“The ex-parte orders made by Hon E M Kagoni on December 22, 2021 in the absence of the defendants [PPRA debarment committee] together with all consequential processes arising therefrom be and is hereby discharged and/or set aside. The plaintiff’s [EAA] suit herein be and is hereby struck out. The costs of this application be and is hereby awarded to the defendants,” the magistrate ruled.

The dismissal of EAA’s case could spell the end for the firm’s work in public procurement in Kenya, as it can no longer bid for any public-funded project. It has operations in Uganda, where it has a contract with the Uganda National Bureau of Standards.

Mr Kagoni’s decision comes as the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) probes a complaint by the PPRA alleging that Calvince Omondi Omino, the individual listed as EAA’s lawyer before the magistrate’s court, is not licenced to practice law in Kenya. Mr Omino filed the suit through his Klein & Omino Associates, which is registered as a property dealer.

The PPRA filed its complaint with the DCI on February 7, 2022 and attached correspondence from the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and searches of Klein & Omino Associates done at the Business Registration Service.

The LSK said in a letter to the PPRA that neither Mr Omino nor Klein & Omino Associates is registered to practice law, and recommended that the alleged lawyer be prosecuted for impersonating an advocate. The LSK has offered to assist in investigations and the prosecution of Mr Omino.

“We confirm that, according to our records, we do not have an advocate who has declared to practice in the firm of Klein & Omino Associates. We further confirm that we do not have an advocate by the name Calvince Omondi Omino. The purported practice by the said person should be subject to criminal proceedings,” the LSK said.

We advise that in the event you require any further assistance to prosecute this matter, kindly get in touch with us,” the LSK said in its letter to the PPRA.

In Kenya, impersonation carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison.

“The firm of Klein & Omino Associates, which ostensibly drew the pleadings on behalf of EAA Company Limited, is registered as “agents and property managers” and is therefore not a firm of advocates. Further, Calvince Omondi Omino, who is the proprietor of the said firm of Klein & Omino Associates as per the official search records from the Business Registration Service, is not admitted as an advocate of the High Court of Kenya,” the PPRA says in its complaint to the DCI.

In the pleadings filed before Magistrate Kagoni, the EAA said that the PPRA blacklist decision was hurriedly and unfairly arrived at. EAA President Prosper Sugai added that the Japanese firm intended to bid for the same tender that Kebs has since advertised. Mr Sugai held that EAA would suffer financial and reputational loss if the Chief Magistrate’s Court failed to suspend the PPRA’s blacklist decision.