[2025] KEHC 3304 (KLR)
The court found that its initial refusal to grant ex parte stay did not preclude it from considering a subsequent application for interim relief. The relevant rules (Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024) empower the court to grant interim orders at any stage if necessary to preserve the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3304 (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
- Judicial Review Application E054 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Interim Relief (stay/prohibition Pending Determination)
- Outcome
- Interim relief granted; implementation of debarment decision stayed pending determination.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Interim Relief, Public Procurement, Debarment Orders
- 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 Application / Ruling on Interim Relief (stay/prohibition Pending Determination)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can grant interim orders of stay or prohibition after initially declining ex parte stay.
- 2 Whether the implementation of the debarment decision should be stayed pending determination of the judicial review application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that its initial refusal to grant ex parte stay did not preclude it from considering a subsequent application for interim relief. The relevant rules (Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024) empower the court to grant interim orders at any stage if necessary to preserve the substratum of the proceedings. The court was satisfied that the respondents would not suffer prejudice if interim relief was granted, but the applicant's judicial review application could be rendered nugatory if the debarment decision was implemented before final determination. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to grant an order prohibiting implementation of the...
Court Disposition
Interim relief granted; implementation of debarment decision stayed pending determination.
Orders
- The debarment decision rendered on 18/2/2025 in Debarment Application No.10/2024 shall not be implemented until this matter is fully determined.
- The 2nd Respondent or any other person or body is prohibited from implementing the said debarment decision pending final determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Auto Terminal Japan Limited v Nzai & 2 others (Judicial Review Application E054 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 3304 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (20 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3304 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Application E054 of 2025
RE Aburili, J
March 20, 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. On 4/3/2025 when this matter was first handled by this court, the court granted leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition.
2. However, the court declined to grant an exparte interim order for the leave granted to operate as stay. The reasons for the refusal to grant stay of implementation of the debarment decision is because the applicant had not filed the Judicial Review application as soon as the debarment decision was made, although the judicial review application was made within 14 days as stipulated in Section 42 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
3. This court also applied the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules, 2024 which provides for the filing of the application for stay as soon as the event giving rise to the application arises.
4. Upon filing of the substantive Notice of Motion which is dated 7/3/2025, the applicant included in the said application a prayer seeking to prohibit the 2nd Respondent from implementing the decision delivered in debarment Application No. 10/2024 dated 17/2/2025 and rendered on 18/2/2025.
5. The matter has now been heard fully and what remains is the judgment writing and delivery. The applicant has sought for interim orders of stay of implementation of the debarment decision. The 1st Respondent has opposed the same on the ground that there is no review of the orders of 4/3/2025 declining to grant an interlocutory order staying implementation of the debarment decision which is impugned.
6. I have considered the prayer for stay or prohibition of implementation of the impugned debarment decision and the objection thereto.
7. In my view, the refusal to grant a stay order exparte in the first instance for the reasons given does not preclude this court from entertaining a subsequent plea for an interim relief or under Rule 13(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Rules 2024, which Rule 13 must be read with Rule 14.
8. Those Rules are meant to aid the court at every stage in making a decision whether to grant interim reliefs or interlocutory orders in Judicial Review proceedings.
9. Where the court, in the course of proceedings, is persuaded that the substratum of the Judicial Review proceedings will be dissipated if an interim relief is not granted, it has unfettered discretion to grant such orders.
10. In this case, I am satisfied that the Respondents shall suffer no prejudice if an interim relief is granted. Conversely, the Judicial Review proceedings are likely to be rendered nugatory if successful and the debarment decision has already been implemented.
11. Accordingly, I allow the prayer for interim relief and order that the debarment decision which was rendered on 18/2/2025 dated 17/2/2025 in Debarment Application No.10/2024 shall not be implemented and the 2nd Respondent or any other person or body is hereby prohibited from implementing the said decision until this matter is fully determined.
12. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE