Apollo Agriculture Ltd v Kenya Bureau of Standards (Tribunal Appeal E001 of 2026) [2026] KEST 2 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling)

Apollo Agriculture Ltd v Kenya Bureau of Standards (Tribunal Appeal E001 of 2026) [2026] KEST 2 (KLR) (19 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEST 2 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Standards Tribunal Tribunal Appeal E001 of 2026 MS Makhandia, Ag Chair, P Mungai, E Langat & A Ong’injo, Members June 19, 2026 Between Apollo Agriculture Ltd Appellant and Kenya Bureau Of Standards Respondent Ruling 1. Background And Pleadings 1.1This Ruling is in respect of the Appellant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 30th March 2026. 1.2They seek three prayers: that the Tribunal be pleased to extend the time within which to file and serve the Statement of Appeal against the decision of the Respondent delivered on 23rd February 2026; that the Tribunal issues a temporary order to suspend the decision of the Respondent dated 20th February, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal; and any other relief as the Tribunal deems just and equitable. 1.3The Appellant’s Application is grounded on the facts that they successfully distributed and supplied 5,000 units of agricultural hoes sourced from China, “the first batch”, which consignment was approved by the Respondent. 1.4Their second attempt to import and supply 3,500 units “the second batch” was unsuccessful as the Respondent rejected them for failing to comply with the requirements of KS EAS 132:2021 - Kenya Standard: Hoe - Specification, specifically in relation to the prescribed dimensions, including line rise eye depth, vertical minor hole diameter of the eye, rib thickness, and blade thickness “the standard”. 1.5The second batch consignment arrived in Kenya at the point of entry on 26th January, 2026 from Zambia. The Appellant submitted a sample from the consignment to the Respondent for inspection and testing on 27th January, 2026 and rejected on 20th February 2026. 1.6The Application is supported by the Affidavit of Agnes Nyambura, the Appellant’s Head of Procurement, sworn on 30th March 2026. 1.7The Respondent opposed it by a Replying Affidavit sworn on 27th April 2026, by the Respondent’s Manager- Quality Inspection. 1.8The Respondent’s position is that the Appellant was made aware of the Respondent’s decision promptly, and that they have not demonstrated sufficient reasons for failing to challenge the said decision. 1.9They seek for the Application to be dismissed and maintain that in any event, the prayer sought in the proposed Statement of Appeal, ( in our own words) of re-testing ought not to be granted since the matter was handled conclusively, and no further public resources should be expended in carrying our the same process. 1.10Parties filed submissions as directed by the Tribunal. 1.11Both the Appellant’s and Respondent’s Submissions are dated 28th May 2026. 2. Issues 2.1The Tribunal has perused the list of issues as framed by the parties in their Submissions. Given that the Parties did not agree on the list of issues, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination.2.1.1Whether Tribunal should grant an order to enlarge time to enable the Appellant to lodge the appeal against the Respondent’s decision conveyed in the Seizure Notice dated 20th February 2026, and delivered on 23rd February 2026 and upon the granting of the said order, the Statement of Appeal be deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite fees?2.1.2Whether the Tribunal should issue interim orders to suspend the decision of the Respondent dated 20th February 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. 3. Analysis 3.1Whether Tribunal should grant an order to enlarge time to enable the Appellant to lodge the appeal against the Respondent’s decision conveyed in the Seizure Notice dated 20th February 2026, and delivered on 23rd February 2026 and upon the granting of the said order, the Statement of Appeal be deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite fees?3.1.1The Appellant cites the decision appealed from as being contained in the Letter date 20th February 2026.3.1.2They approached the court on 30th March 2026.3.1.3It is curious from the Notice of Motion Application dated 30th Day of March 2026 that the Appellant states in their Prayer 1, in passing, that the decision was delivered on 23rd February 2026.3.1.4The Appellant does not, in their sworn affidavit dated 30th March 2026, state how the Notice was delivered, whether by hand delivery, electronic mail or registered post.3.1.5The Appellant has not explained how they came to be notified of the decision, on which date they received the Seizure Notice and which of their representative was made aware of the Seizure Notice. In failing to do so, they leave the Tribunal at a loss on which date should be considered in computing time, whether it should be 20th February 2026 or 23rd February 2026.3.1.6In any event, they acknowledge receipt of the Letter issued by the Respondent dated 20th February 2026.3.1.7The Appellant has stated that upon receiving the Letter dated 20th February 2026, they desired to lodge an appeal, they took action on two fronts: one being seeking the requisite conformity details and supporting documentation from the country of origin; and engaging the Respondent to establish new review procedures.3.1.8The Appellant exhibited Commercial Invoice Number BGMUT241 dated 8th January 2025, Invoice Number 954 dated 19th March 2025 and and INV-DXB1048626 dated 4th December 2024, as part of their supporting documentation as well as whatsapp messages from a mobile telephone number saved as Mybox Zambia.3.1.9That is all they relied on to attempt to convince the Tribunal of the effort they were taking prior to filing the appeal.3.1.10What is missing, is evidence to show the alleged engagement the Appellant had with the Respondent.3.1.11In absence of any further correspondence to demonstrate that there were further deliberations or efforts to engage the Respondent, which effort would have culminated into a subsequent appealable decision, we find that the final outcome or decision by the Respondent was contained in the letter dated 20th February 2026.3.1.12This is the sole decision capable of being appealed against.3.1.13The Appellant seeks leave to extend the time within which to file an appeal against the decision of the Respondent and which we will take, from the discussion above to have been delivered on 23rd February 2026.3.1.14The Appellant relies on the case of Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] KESC 12 (KLR) (Ruling) to convince the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction to extend time.3.1.15We note from the outset, however, that the Appellant’s Counsel filed a different Authority, being the Court of Appeal decision Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] KECA 782 (KLR) (Judgment).3.1.16That notwithstanding, the Tribunal considered the decision in Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] KESC 12 (KLR).3.1.17We distinguish the above case from the present matter on the basis that, in that case, the Supreme Court Rules, 2012 clearly provided for the extension of time within which to file an appeal, whereas no such provision(s) exists in the case before us. Under Rule 30 of the the said Rules “(1)A person who intends to appeal to the court shall file a notice of appeal, in Form b set out in the first Schedule, with the Registrar of the court or tribunal against whose decision it is desired to appeal.3.1.18A person who wishes to extend time could do so by invoking Rule 53 of the same Rules, the Supreme Court could indeed extend time.3.1.19As was stated in Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] KESC 12 (KLR), “It is on this equitable under-pinning that courts in Common Law jurisdictions in exercise of their discretion now grant orders extending time. Presently, extension of time has now been given statutory backing with various legislations providing courts with the power to extend time.”3.1.20The statutory underpinning in our case is the Standards Act Cap 496 Laws of Kenya, which provides on the time frame within which a person may file an appeal. Section 11 of the Act provides that “Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Bureau or the Council may within fourteen days of the notification of the act complained of being received by him, appeal in writing to the Tribunal.” (Emphasis ours).3.1.21The reason for inquiry into the date on which the letter reached the Appellant is that, the Act provides that time starts running from the date of notification.3.1.22Taking the date of notification to be 23rd February 2026, the Appellant had Fourteen (14) days to file the Appeal, the last date being 9th March 2026.3.1.23The Appellant now asks the Tribunal to extend this period.3.1.24In order to answer this question, we look at the power of the Tribunal granted under the Standards Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Legal Notice 195 of 2013.3.1.25Rule 34 (4) provides that “The Tribunal may for good reason shown, on application, extend the time appointed by these Rules for doing any act or taking any proceedings, and may do so upon such terms and conditions, if any, as appear to it just and expedient.3.1.26Rule 34 (5) has a caveat on a matter for which the Tribunal would not have the power to extend time. It provides as follows: “The extension of time referred to in paragraph (4) does not include time limited by the Act.”3.1.27On the other hand, Section 11 of the Act provides that “Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Bureau or the Council may within fourteen days of the notification of the act complained of being received by him, appeal in writing to the Tribunal.” (Emphasis ours).3.1.28We are inclined to agree with the submission by the Respondent.3.1.29The Appellant further relies on the provision of Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution which requires the court to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities and to promote substantive justice.3.1.30On the question whether the Appellant can lend themselves to Article 159, we are further guided by the decision of the court in Evans Nabwera Taracha v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 2 others [2018] KECA 453 (KLR) where it was stated that “Furthermore, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Aramat’s case, the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution do not apply to the statutory time lines as it is not an issue of procedural compliance. From the above analysis, it is evident that the “appeal” filed outside the mandatory prescribed time, is not an appeal as contemplated by law and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. We so find”.3.1.31As the time for preferring an appeal is limited by the Act, under Section 11, we find that the Tribunal does not have the power and therefore cannot exercise discretion to extend such timelines.3.1.32Having established that the Appellant was aware of the decision contained in the letter dated 20th February 2026, on 23rd February 2026, the last date on which they had to file the appeal was 9th March 2026, we find that the Statement of Appeal dated 30th March 2026 was filed out of statutory time limits as laid down by the Act and therefore decline to admit it as duly filed. 3.2Whether the Tribunal should issue interim orders to suspend the decision of the Respondent dated 20th February 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal?3.2.1The Appellant has filed an Application for an order suspending the effect of the decision of the Respondent dated 20th February 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.3.2.2Rule 9 (6) of the Rules states that that lodging of an appeal automatically suspends the execution of the decision or order pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.3.2.3The effect of this Rule is to effectively preserve the subject matter during the pendency of this appeal.3.2.4However, having found that the appeal was filed out of time and that the Tribunal does not have the discretion to extend the timeline within which to file the appeal, this issue becomes moot. Dispositiona.The Notice of Motion Application dated 30th March 2026 is dismissed;b.Each party to bear their own costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026MOSES SANDE MAKHANDIA(ACTING CHAIRPERSON)….…………………………...............PETER MUNGAI(MEMBER)……………………………….................EVANS LAGAT(MEMBER)……………………………………………………….ADRIAN OPIYO ONG’INJO(MEMBER)…..………………………...............................Delivered in the presence of:Mr. Victor Orandi for the Appellant.Ms. Achieng’ for the Respondent.