Five Kalmar machines were meant for the Port of Mombasa. KPA says they were diverted after payment, two have resurfaced under police custody while three remain unaccounted for as the DCI probe is temporarily frozen by the High Court.
A Sh195 million machinery deal at the Port of Mombasa has exploded into a high-stakes legal and criminal investigation involving Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), Power Parts (Kenya) Limited, Finnish equipment manufacturer Kalmar and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.
At the centre of the storm are five Kalmar empty container handlers that KPA says it paid for but did not receive as contracted.
Two of the machines have since resurfaced and are being held at Port Police Station, while the whereabouts of the remaining three have become a key question in the investigation.
The dispute has also placed Power Parts director Vishal Soni under intense scrutiny, with KPA pursuing recovery of the Sh195 million in a separate civil case. A report by TouchLine News has put the recovery claim against Soni at about USD1 million, although the formal KPA claim reported by mainstream sources is for the full Sh195 million against Power Parts and Kalmar.
The criminal investigation, however, has temporarily hit a judicial roadblock.
The five machines at the centre of the storm
According to court records and reports on the dispute, the equipment comprises five Kalmar empty container handlers bearing serial numbers B11500238, B11500239, B11500240, B11500241 and B11500242.
KPA allegedly paid Power Parts and Kalmar approximately Sh195 million for the equipment, which was intended for operations at the Port of Mombasa.
Investigators are examining allegations that, instead of being delivered to KPA as expected around March 2025, the machines were diverted to another port outside Kenya in October 2025 after payment had already been made.
KPA subsequently reported the matter to the DCI on September 1, 2026.
The complaint triggered a criminal investigation, followed by a warrant issued by the Mombasa Chief Magistrate’s Court on September 8.
Directors of Power Parts were subsequently summoned by detectives.
The company responded by moving to the Mombasa High Court.
High Court freezes the DCI probe
On September 16, Lady Justice Wendy Kagendo Micheni issued interim conservatory orders temporarily restraining the DCI from arresting, summoning, detaining, charging, arraigning or prosecuting Power Parts, its directors, officers, employees or agents over the complaint.
The judge also suspended enforcement of KPA’s September 1 complaint, the DCI’s September 2 decision to commence investigations and the September 8 magistrate’s court warrant.
The orders are not a final determination of the allegations.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 5, 2026, when the respondents are expected to respond and defend the investigative process.
The court went further and ordered the respondents to disclose on oath the whereabouts, custody and condition of two machines identified by serial numbers B11500238 and B11500239.
Any material already obtained by detectives under the disputed orders was ordered sealed, preserved and deposited with the Deputy Registrar.
That order effectively puts a spotlight on the physical trail of the equipment and whatever evidence investigators had already gathered.
Two machines back, three still missing
The whereabouts of the five machines form the most explosive part of the dispute.
According to reports on the investigation, two units eventually returned to Kenya and were taken into police custody at the Port Police Station.
The fate of the other three remains a matter of contention and investigation.
KPA’s position, as reported in the court proceedings, is that the equipment had allegedly been diverted to another port despite the authority having already paid for it.
The machinery was subsequently said to have returned to Kenya after the dispute emerged.
The unresolved question is therefore stark: how did equipment purchased for a Kenyan public authority end up outside the country, and where are all five machines today?
Those questions remain allegations under investigation and have not been determined by a court.
Power Parts’ long relationship with KPA
The controversy is particularly significant because Power Parts is not a newcomer to the port-equipment business.
Kalmar itself has publicly described PowerParts as an important partner in Kenya.
In a 2023 account of its relationship with KPA, Kalmar said its collaboration with KPA and PowerParts had developed over many years. Kalmar described PowerParts as its dealer in Kenya and said the company provided KPA with information, equipment maintenance and training services.
Kalmar said the relationship had evolved from an agency arrangement into a broader partnership.
Power Parts’ own website describes the company as a supplier of cargo-handling equipment and services to ports, terminals, distribution centres and heavy industry.
Its website lists Mombasa and Nairobi operations and identifies Vishal Soni as director of its Mombasa branch and Bharat D. Vaitha as chairman.
It is this established relationship with KPA that makes the Sh195 million dispute particularly consequential.
The Soni connection
Corporate and court records place Soni directly within Power Parts’ management structure.
A company record cited in reports on the current dispute lists Bharat Devidas Jeram Veitha with 99 ordinary shares and Vishal Soni with one ordinary share in Power Parts (Kenya) Limited.
Despite holding only one share in that record, Soni is identified by Power Parts itself as the director of its Mombasa branch.
He has also been directly involved in previous litigation between Power Parts and KPA.
In a separate 2025 High Court case, Soni swore an affidavit as a director of Power Parts in a dispute involving KPA contracts. The court record shows the supporting material filed by the company ran to more than 360 pages.
That earlier dispute concerned KPA contracts for equipment and spare parts and illustrates that relations between the two entities have previously reached the courts.
The current machinery controversy is therefore not occurring in isolation.
A separate USD413,940 dispute
The relationship between Power Parts and KPA has also generated another major legal fight.
A March 2026 Court of Appeal ruling records a dispute involving earlier framework supply contracts between the two parties.
The court dealt with a contested USD413,940 garnishee claim arising from those proceedings and granted KPA a stay of execution and related proceedings pending its appeal.
That litigation is separate from the current Sh195 million machinery controversy.
It nevertheless demonstrates the extent to which the commercial relationship between KPA and Power Parts has become heavily litigated.
Another 2025 High Court decision records a separate dispute involving KPA contracts for the supply of Kalmar reachstacker and terminal-tractor spare parts. The contracts were terminated by KPA, leading to further litigation.
KPA wants its money back
The latest dispute has now moved on two tracks.
The first is criminal, with the DCI investigating allegations surrounding the alleged diversion of the five machines.
The second is civil.
KPA has filed Mombasa High Court Civil Suit E041 of 2026, seeking recovery of the Sh195 million it says it paid for the equipment.
Power Parts and Kalmar are named in the recovery proceedings.
The civil claim and criminal investigation are separate processes, and neither establishes liability until the relevant proceedings are determined.
But the financial stakes are already clear.
If KPA’s allegations are ultimately established, the dispute would concern a substantial loss involving public funds earmarked for equipment at one of Kenya’s most strategically important trade gateways.
What happens next?
For now, the machines and the money remain at the heart of a widening legal battle.
Two of the five machines are reportedly under police custody.
Three remain the subject of questions about their whereabouts.
KPA wants the Sh195 million back.
The DCI wants to investigate allegations surrounding the equipment, but its current actions are restrained by interim High Court orders.
Power Parts has obtained temporary protection from arrest and prosecution over the complaint, but the orders do not amount to a finding that the company committed no wrongdoing.
The next major courtroom date is October 5, 2026.
That hearing could determine how the criminal investigation proceeds and what happens to the evidence already gathered.
Until then, the central mystery remains unresolved: why were five machines purchased for the Port of Mombasa allegedly found outside Kenya after payment, why have only two returned, and where are the other three?
Those are questions now sitting at the intersection of public money, port operations, international equipment supply and Kenya’s criminal justice system.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
