A fresh twist has emerged in Kenya’s ongoing petroleum crisis after Oryx Energies Kenya Ltd detailed how a multi-million fuel supply deal was abruptly cancelled while shipments were already en route, raising serious concerns over the integrity of emergency procurement processes.

 

In a formal response to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Managing Director Angeline Maangi disclosed that the company had acted on an urgent government request to supply Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), only for the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum (MOEP) to cancel the arrangement at the last minute.

 

“The Company acted at the Government’s request, under extreme market conditions, and with the sole purpose of supporting Kenya’s energy security,” Maangi said in her submission.

 

The company told the Committee that it first received a direct request for proposal from the State Department of Petroleum on March 19, 2026, seeking additional fuel supplies to cushion Kenya against disruptions caused by the ongoing Middle East conflict.

 

“The invitation was communicated directly to the Company’s Managing Director from the official email account of the Principal Secretary,” the response reads, adding that it was unclear whether other oil marketers were invited to bid.

 

Oryx submitted its proposal within a tight two-hour window, quoting for the supply of PMS and confirming its capacity to deliver.

 

“We submitted the quotation within the required timeline and confirmed our readiness to perform under the proposed terms,” Maangi stated.

 

By March 25, the Ministry had formally accepted the company’s offer to supply 60,000 metric tonnes of fuel. Two days later, the company secured an additional 36,000 metric tonnes to further bolster Kenya’s reserves—an offer that was also approved.

 

“Our ability to respond with speed and certainty in conditions of acute market stress is precisely the operational value that an experienced regional operator brings,” the company said.

 

However, in a dramatic turn, the government cancelled the entire deal on March 31, just as shipments were already underway.

 

“The shipment was en route for delivery when the Ministry cancelled the offer,” Maangi said. “By that time, a binding contractual arrangement had already been established through formal correspondence.”

 

The firm has since rejected the cancellation and urged the government to honour what it describes as a “binding contractual arrangement.”

 

“We had already committed significant operational resources in anticipation of performance,” she added.

 

The Senate Committee is currently probing the circumstances under which emergency fuel procurement was undertaken, amid concerns over transparency, pricing, and adherence to the Government-to-Government (G2G) framework.

 

During the proceedings, Senators raised sharp questions over the speed and structure of the deal, with Danson Mungatana pressing the company on its decision-making process.

 

“Did you talk to your lawyers or consult widely before entering into a contract within two hours?” Sen. Mungatana posed.

 

He further pressed, “The committee wants to know the role that you played without a physical meeting?”

 

He also questioned the company’s awareness of existing government arrangements, asking, “Would you be comfortable to jump into such an arrangement knowing the existence of government-to-government contracts with Gulf states?”

 

The Senator added, “What was your profit margin and have you done such huge business before?”

 

Boni Khalwale weighed in on the financial implications of the cancelled deal.

 

“Listening to Madam Maangi, the taxpayer wants to know the consequences of the failed contract and who pays you for the loss of money?” Sen. Khalwale asked.

 

He further sought clarity on logistics costs, asking, “What is the cost of importing petroleum products through the Cape of Good Hope?”

 

Meanwhile, Allan Chesang Kisang raised concerns over missed opportunities.

 

“We need to know the cost of missing out on the importation of these petroleum products,” Sen. Kisang said.

 

In her response, Maangi revealed the financial toll the cancelled deal has already taken on the company.

 

“As of today, the company has lost USD 25 million in the failed deal,” she told the Committee.

 

She also defended the company’s track record and experience in the sector.

 

“Our company has been actively involved in the importation of petroleum products and was among the top three importers before the Government-to-Government framework,” she said.

 

She added that the communication method used by the Ministry was not unusual.

 

“It is standard practice that the State Department of Petroleum communicates to oil marketers in this manner,” Maangi told the Committee.

 

The Managing Director also underscored the firm’s longstanding presence in the industry.

 

“In the 39 years that the company has been in operation, it has built a reputation and is a trusted player as an oil importer,” she said.

 

Oryx defended its pricing, explaining that its quoted premium of USD 253.94 per metric tonne reflected extraordinary global market conditions triggered by the Middle East crisis.

 

“This differential reflects prevailing market conditions characterised by acute product scarcity,” the company said.

 

The firm cited severe supply disruptions, including blockage of key shipping routes and heightened geopolitical risks.

 

“Transit through key routes had significantly reduced, tanker availability dropped, and insurance premiums surged due to war-risk exposure,” the company explained.

 

“Rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope added up to two weeks in transit time and materially increased logistics costs,” it added.

 

Despite the higher pricing, Oryx maintained that its actions were in good faith and aligned with the government’s urgent need to secure fuel supplies.

 

“The Company acted in reasonable and good-faith reliance on a formal written invitation from the competent authority,” Maangi said.

 

The firm also raised concerns about the broader implications of the cancellation, warning that such actions could undermine private sector confidence in responding to national emergencies.

 

“A framework that invites participation but fails to honour resulting commitments risks eroding the private sector’s capacity to respond,” the company cautioned.

 

Oryx further indicated that there are currently no ongoing negotiations with the Ministry, though it has reserved its rights arising from the cancellation.

 

“As matters currently stand, there are no active engagements with the Ministry regarding emergency fuel supply,” the company stated.

 

The company reaffirmed its willingness to engage with the Senate Committee and support Kenya’s energy security efforts.

 

“We welcome the opportunity to engage further with the Committee in person,” Maangi said.

 

The Committee is expected to continue its inquiry, with appearances from key stakeholders likely to shed more light on the controversial procurement process that has placed the country’s fuel supply chain under scrutiny.