[2025] KEHC 3151 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient urgency to warrant certification of the application as urgent, as the application was not filed immediately after the impugned decision but rather near the end of the statutory period. The court held that the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3151 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Auto Terminal Japan Limited; Respondent: Charles Nzai; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Board; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Application E054 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Leave and Stay
- Outcome
- Leave to apply for judicial review granted; application for urgency and interim stay declined.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Public Procurement Debarment, Fair Administrative Action, Interim Relief, Urgency in Applications
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Auto Terminal Japan Limited
Applicant
Charles Nzai
Respondent
Public Procurement Regulatory Board
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Leave and Stay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was urgent and merited certification as such.
- 2 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should operate as a stay of the implementation of the debarment decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient urgency to warrant certification of the application as urgent, as the application was not filed immediately after the impugned decision but rather near the end of the statutory period. The court held that the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024 require prompt action where urgency and interim relief are sought. Consequently, the court declined to certify the application as urgent and refused to grant an ex parte interim stay of the debarment decision. However, the court granted leave to apply for judicial review, directing the applicant to file and serve the substantive motion within five days, with the respondents to...
Court Disposition
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; application for urgency and interim stay declined.
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for judicial review orders challenging the debarment decision of 18/2/2025.
- The application is not certified as urgent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Auto Terminal Japan Limited v Nzai & 2 others (Application E054 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 3151 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (4 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3151 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Application E054 of 2025
RE Aburili, J
March 4, 2025
Between
Auto Terminal Japan Limited
Applicant
and
Charles Nzai
1st Respondent
Public Procurement Regulatory Board
2nd Respondent
The Attorney General
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. The chamber summons dated 20th February 2025 was filed in court on 3/3/2025 under certificate of urgency. The decision sought to be challenged was rendered on 18/2/2025.
2. The applicant did not have to wait until the end of the 14th day as provided for under Section 42 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, to file the application which is dated 20/2/2025, under certificate of urgency. I find no urgency involved.
3. I decline to certify the application as urgent. I nonetheless grant the applicant leave to apply for Judicial Review orders challenging the said debarment decision.
4. The substantive Notice of Motion to be filed and served upon the Respondents within 5 days of today upon which the Respondents have 7 days of the date of service to file and serve replying affidavits. The matter shall be mentioned on 17/3/2025 to confirm the filing of the main motion.
5. On whether the leave granted should operate as stay of implementation of the impugned decision, as earlier stated, the decision under challenge was made on 18/2/2025 and the application for leave appears to have been prepared and signed just two days later.
6. There is no reason why the applicant procrastinated filing the application until the 14th day approached.
7. Rules 13 & 14 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024 clearly stipulate that where the applicant seeks that the Judicial Review application be heard urgently and interim or interlocutory orders be granted, then such application shall be made as soon as the event giving rise to such application arises.
8. The decision being challenged is an administrative decision and hence the Fair Administrative Action and Rules apply.
9. I decline to grant any exparte interim stay as the application has not been made as soon as the event giving rise to the application arose.
10. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4THDAY OF MARCH, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE2| JR NO. E054 OF 2025 RULING