By Kenya-Today.com Team
The Supreme Court has nullified a controversial Sh5.8 billion grain handling contract awarded to Portside Freight Terminals Limited, a firm associated with the Joho family. In a unanimous decision, a five-judge bench ruled that the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) violated constitutional procurement rules by awarding the deal without a competitive bidding process. The judges stated that the move contravened Article 227 of the Constitution, which requires public procurement to be fair, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective.
This ruling overturns a previous decision by the Court of Appeal that had allowed Portside to go ahead with the project. The cancellation effectively preserves the monopoly held by businessman Mohamed Jaffer, whose company, Grain Bulk Handlers Limited (GBHL), has enjoyed near-exclusive control over bulk grain operations at the port for over three decades. GBHL currently handles more than 98% of the grain imports coming through Mombasa, raising serious concerns about competition and fair market access.
Jaffer, a little-known but powerful tycoon, has long faced accusations of using political connections and regulatory capture to entrench his grip on grain handling at the expense of potential competitors. Several attempts to license rival operators at the port have been either blocked, sabotaged, or tied up in endless litigation. Critics allege that Jaffer uses financial influence to shield his empire from scrutiny, including through donations to political actors and behind-the-scenes lobbying.
The nullified Portside deal was seen as the first real attempt to open up the sector, offering the public a chance to benefit from competitive tariffs and efficient services. But with the Supreme Court now scrapping the project due to flawed procurement, Jaffer’s monopoly remains firmly in place. MPs and trade observers have repeatedly questioned how GBHL manages to maintain its dominance, often citing undercutting tactics, control over logistics infrastructure, and silent partnerships across government agencies.
At the heart of the case is the integrity of public procurement and the broader question of economic fairness. Awarding a Sh5.8 billion port project without open tender undermines public trust and opens the door to elite capture. The Supreme Court ruling, while stopping the Portside deal, does not address the underlying issue—how a single player has been allowed to dominate a vital national supply chain for decades.
For ordinary Kenyans, this has far-reaching implications. Grain imports impact the price of flour and other staples. When one company monopolizes such imports, it creates the risk of price manipulation, limited accountability, and slower response during national shortages. Jaffer, through GBHL, also supplies major millers under brands such as Ajab and Umi, meaning his reach extends from the port to your dinner table.
The ruling now puts pressure on the Kenya Ports Authority to start the tendering process afresh, this time opening the door for other qualified bidders. It also calls on Parliament and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority to re-examine how KPA and similar agencies sidestep competitive processes in favour of politically connected entities. Regulatory bodies and lawmakers must decide whether monopolies like GBHL should continue operating without oversight.
Mohamed Jaffer may have won this round by default, but the spotlight is now on his business empire. Kenyans are asking hard questions: How did one man secure a stranglehold on an entire national food supply chain? Why are oversight bodies silent on procurement abuse? And what will it take to open Mombasa Port to fair, lawful competition?
As the country awaits KPA’s next move, one thing remains clear: the fight for control over Kenya’s food import systems is far from over. The people deserve answers, and more importantly, they deserve accountability. For now, Jaffer walks away as the undisputed king of grain at the coast—but at what cost to the country?
