Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

The government has been urged to formally file evidence in court to substantiate that indeed the Adani deal with the state has been cancelled. 

Senior Counsel Kalonzo Musyoka, Eugene Wamalwa, and Kibe Mungai among other lawyers representing the petitioners told High Court judge Bahati Mwamuye that there are new developments in the case and the state should produce evidence to show the Adani deal is not on.

“There must be an account for whoever brought Adani into the country. We are talking of a high level of corruption which the US has taken seriously. We need to know what exactly was cancelled,” Kalonzo argued.

The legal team led by Kalonzo argued before the court that President William Ruto’s cancellation of the deal during the State of the Nation address is not proof enough that the matter is off the table.

“The President had directed the cancellation of the contract with Adani and the energy sector. In the documents, none has annexed the President’s directions on cancellation has taken place”, the court was informed.

The state however maintained that there was no deal that had been signed by the Adani Group with the government. 

The state through Ben Mosota on Tuesday, November 26, 2027, told Judge Mwamuye that the proposals were not at a final stage and hence there was no contract to cancel.

“My clients are yet to instruct us on the basis of the cancellation, the said proposals were not at the final stage… There is no contract to cancel,” Mosoti told the court.

He added that the government wants to invoke the private initiatives proposals on how to deal with such eventualities before he responds to the request by Kalonzo on the details of the cancellation of the Adani deal.

“We need 21 days to enable our client to go through the process and seek from the two ministries involved. We shall be able to file a reply on the steps taken”, the lawyer said.

However, the government has filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction. They want the matter to be referred to a Public-private committee.

“There is a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of the court. Section 75 subsection 2 that gives jurisdiction public exhaustion,” Mosoti said.

At the same time, Adani Group through its lawyer Ezra Makori wants to be excluded from the case following the President’s directive on the cancellation of the contract. 

“We wish to be executed from the case since the contracts have been cancelled,” Makori said.

Lawyer Fred Ngatia representing Civil Aviation said he had noted that there are major strong winds to stall the project. There are developments which need to be taken by a court through formal application. 

However, the court issued a conservatory order restraining the government from entering into any contention with Adani concerning Jkia. 

The judge noted that since there were new developments, the case may be affected and allowed the application to grant more time to both parties who had not filed their submissions. 

The case will be mentioned on January 29, 2025.

Kalonzo and Wamalwa are lawyers in the case representing Aviation workers.

“This is a state capture…Adani is crowded with secrecy …we are determined to fight for this generation and for the benefit of our future generation..so that there will be transparency,” Kalonzo Musyoka said after the court session.

“If Adani will control JKIA then they will paralyse our country,” Eugene Wamalwa added.

Meanwhile, a Preliminary objection has been filed in the case challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the matter.

In this case, the Petitioner wants the deal declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the process was rushed and the usual processes bypassed.

Last month, the High Court stopped the deal between the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO) and Adani Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Indian conglomerate Adani Group.

The deal signed on October 11 and valued at Sh95.6billion (USD 736 million), involves the Indian company developing, financing, constructing, and operating critical transmission lines and substations across the country.

The development comes just two days after the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) moved to court seeking conservatory orders pending hearing and determination of the case. 

In the petition, certified as urgent, LSK described the agreement as a constitutional sham tainted with secrecy and lacking the principles of integrity.

LSK further stated that the government did not conduct meaningful public participation in the same while also arguing that the matter is of great public concern.

“The petitioner also faults the respondents for allegedly not conducting a proper due diligence of the proposal contrary to constitutional imperatives and the provisions of the Public Private Partnerships Act,” court documents read.