Treasury PS faces jail over Sh140 million debt

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Scroll down to read the article

National Treasury Principal Secretary Chris Kiptoo. A Senate watchdog committee wants the PS summoned for failing to appear before it over the controversial draft Privatisation Bill and the current cash crunch in counties.

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

By Sam Kiplagat

Court Reporter

Nation Media Group

Article
Related

Treasury Principal Secretary Dr Chris Kiptoo faces a possible six-month jail term after being found in contempt of court for failing to pay a technology firm more than Sh140 million arising from a tender awarded about five years ago.

In a ruling delivered last week, the High Court found Dr Kiptoo guilty of contempt, citing what it described as “brazen defiance” of a court order issued on December 31, 2025, directing the government to pay Kobby Technologies Ltd.

The information technology firm had been contracted in February 2021, alongside other companies, to provide on-site support for Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) applications, enhance IFMIS e-procurement, and deliver related services over three years.

Read: Irony of Treasury admitting borrowing not sustainable, then going for more

However, Kobby Technologies accused the Treasury PS of failing to honour the court directive despite being duly served.

“The conduct of the accounting officer demonstrates willful defiance in that all through the litigation process from the Commercial Court to these proceedings, the superior Courts
made specific orders including garnishee and mandamus orders, which it has not challenged or obtained stay of enforcement,” said the court.

The court has now directed Dr Kiptoo to appear on May 6 for mitigation and for appropriate orders as to punishment.

Evidence presented showed that the National Treasury had contracted a consortium comprising Kingsway Business Systems Limited, Kobby Technologies Limited and Iplenion Eastern Africa Limited to deliver the IT services at a total cost of Sh647 million, subject to annual renewal based on performance.

Read: Treasury targets law change to tame white elephant projects

According to the Treasury, the contract was divided into two components- IFMIS application support valued at Sh418.2 million and enhancement of IFMIS e-procurement at Sh228.8 million.

The government maintained that the contract was milestone-based, with all Year One deliverables completed and paid for, while work under Years Two and Three was not executed and therefore, not payable.

In his defence, Dr Kiptoo argued that although extensions had been proposed, the contractor failed to meet the required conditions, leading to the contract’s expiry with no outstanding sums due.

He further stated that the National Treasury lacks the funds to settle the claimed amount and is therefore unable to comply with the garnishee order.

Kobby Technologies, however, told the court that its share of the contract was Sh303.8 million. Following a dispute, the matter was referred to arbitration, which awarded the firm Sh165.8 million. The High Court recognised the arbitral award in July 2024.

The company argued that Dr Kiptoo, as the accounting officer, had been aware of the matter’s progress since February 2025 but had failed to comply with multiple court orders.

Read: State insists it owns eCitizen, but how did the platform end up in Webmasters' hands?

Despite being served with the decree, the PS had refused to comply or offer any plausible explanation for the non-compliance, the court noted.

The judge found that the terms of the order were clear and that Dr Kiptoo had been properly served but deliberately chose to act in breach of it.

The court further observed that the PS had not presented any evidence to show that the contract had been lawfully terminated for non-performance or that the disputed amount had been settled.

It added that all contractual issues raised in his defence had already been addressed in the December 31, 2025 judgment and could not be reopened.

“There has been no challenge to that judgment. Relying on such matters as a defence to contempt is therefore misplaced and amounts to abuse of the court process, as the issues were settled,” the court ruled.