- NSSF faces a Supreme Court case after losing an appeal over a cancelled CCTV tender.
- Micro City Computers Ltd was awarded Ksh 103.4 million for wrongful termination.
- The original deal was cancelled in 2011 over budget issues.
- Court of Appeal found the termination unlawful, triggering NSSF’s top-level legal challenge.
- The case highlights wider concerns over public procurement accountability at the Fund.
The National Social Security Fund (NSSF) has now taken a controversial procurement dispute to the Supreme Court, aiming to reverse a decision that ordered it to pay Ksh 103.4 million to a contractor. The payment was awarded to Micro City Computers Ltd, which had secured a CCTV and access control system tender at NSSF headquarters back in 2011, only for the deal to be cancelled unexpectedly.
Micro City’s contract involved installing security systems at the NSSF building. However, the fund later called off the project, blaming a lack of funds. In response, Micro City filed a case for breach of contract, demanding compensation for expected profits and other related costs.
Initially, the High Court agreed only to part of Micro City’s demands, excluding the profits. But the Court of Appeal took a different view. In a major April 2024 decision, it ruled that NSSF had wrongly ended the agreement and awarded the contractor over Ksh 103 million for lost profits and disrupted business.
NSSF management insists the contract was cancelled within the law. They say the contract lacked funding from the start and claim the courts misunderstood procurement laws. Now, they’re asking the Supreme Court to throw out the compensation order, arguing that the appeal court misapplied legal principles.
This isn’t just about one contract. The Fund has come under increasing fire over how it handles big-money tenders, especially with property projects. Some lawmakers have accused NSSF of working with companies that inflate costs. One such firm is China Jiangxi International, which has faced parliamentary scrutiny over pricing in NSSF projects.
Experts now warn that such high-stakes cases, if left unresolved, could damage the Fund’s image and trust among contributors. They say the dispute highlights the urgent need for discipline and transparency when public institutions enter into contracts using pensioners’ money.
All eyes are now on the Supreme Court, where the case is being closely watched by legal, public finance, and pension sector players. Its outcome could either clear NSSF or set a new standard for contract enforcement and financial accountability in government institutions.
