[2022] KECA 407 (KLR)

[2022] KECA 407 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that section 175(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act imposes mandatory and non-extendable timelines for filing and determination of appeals arising from procurement disputes. The appellant filed the appeal 191 days after the High Court decision, far outside the seven-day window prescribed by the Act. The Court found that its jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal ceased by effluxion of time, as the statutory period had lapsed. The Court emphasized that Parliament's intention was to ensure expeditious resolution of procurement disputes and that the statutory timelines are cast in stone, leaving no room for judicial discretion or extension....

Citation
[2022] KECA 407 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: ADK Technologies Ltd in Consortium with Computer Technologies Ltd; Respondent: Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Respondent: Principal Secretary National Treasury & Planning; Respondent: National Treasury & Planning; Respondent: Kingsway Business Systems Ltd In Consortium with Kobby Technologies Ltd & Inplenion East Africa Ltd; Respondent: ADK Technologies Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 March 2022
Case Number
Civil Appeal E598 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction
Judges
S ole Kantai, KI Laibuta, K M'Inoti
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Judicial Review, Statutory Timelines, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Judicial Review Statutory Timelines Jurisdiction of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADK Technologies Ltd in Consortium with Computer Technologies Ltd

Appellant

Public Procurement Administrative Review Board

Respondent

Principal Secretary National Treasury & Planning

Respondent

National Treasury & Planning

Respondent

Kingsway Business Systems Ltd In Consortium with Kobby Technologies Ltd & Inplenion East Africa Ltd

Respondent

ADK Technologies Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed outside the statutory timelines under section 175(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory timelines for filing and determination of procurement appeals are mandatory and cast in stone.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that section 175(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act imposes mandatory and non-extendable timelines for filing and determination of appeals arising from procurement disputes. The appellant filed the appeal 191 days after the High Court decision, far outside the seven-day window prescribed by the Act. The Court found that its jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal ceased by effluxion of time, as the statutory period had lapsed. The Court emphasized that Parliament's intention was to ensure expeditious resolution of procurement disputes and that the statutory timelines are cast in stone, leaving no room for judicial discretion or extension....

Court Disposition

appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out with costs to the respondents.