President William Ruto's administration has successfully defended a Ksh260 billion case instituted by Rift Valley Railway at the London Court of International Arbitration.
The court case began in 2020, when the railway company filed a petition against the Kenyan and Ugandan governments over allegations of premature termination of a railway construction and maintenance contract.
The two countries had entered an interface agreement for the construction and management of a railway line that was scheduled to run between the countries for freight and passenger transportation.
However, in 2017, Uganda and Kenya terminated Rift Valley Railways' 25-year contract due to the company's failure to meet set operating targets, including payment of concession fees.
The two countries claimed that the railway company had failed to secure adequate financing from its lenders, which resulted in various breaches of the obligations under the concessionary agreement.
Following the termination of the multi-billion-dollar deal, the Rift Valley Railway company filed a petition at the London court challenging the controversial decision.
In the case, the company demanded Ksh300 million ($2 billion) in compensation from the two countries for what it termed a breach of the Railway Concessional Agreement.
Both governments were served with an initial notice of arbitration in 2020, notifying them that the railway company had filed a petition challenging their decision.
In its defence, lawyers representing the governments of Kenya and Uganda refuted the allegations and instead faulted the complainant for violating the terms of the agreement.
Among the lawyers who represented Kenya in court were former Attorney General Githu Muigai, Senior Counsel Wambui Muigai, Dennis Nkarichia, and Nimo Adan.
Others included Shadrack Mose, Njeri Wachira, Allan Githaiga, Charles Wamwayi, Sheila Mammet, Victoria Munyi, Anne Mulama, and Elizabeth Wamocho.
After over five years of legal proceedings, the London court, on Thursday, July 24, dismissed the petition, with costs awarded in favour of the respondents.
