[2025] KEHC 8203 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant delayed in filing the application, the chamber summons, statutory statement, and verifying affidavit established an arguable prima facie case for judicial review. The application was not frivolous. The court declined to certify the matter as urgent due to the delay but...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 8203 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Cocopan Construction Kenya Limited; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Board's Department Commitee; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Board; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Authority; Interested Party: Judiciary
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E063 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Leave and Stay
- Outcome
- Leave to apply for judicial review granted; leave to operate as stay of implementation of debarment decision; matter not certified as urgent; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Public Procurement, Judicial Review Leave, Debarment Proceedings, Stay of Implementation
- 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
Cocopan Construction Kenya Limited
Applicant
Public Procurement Regulatory Board's Department Commitee
Respondent
Public Procurement Regulatory Board
Respondent
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
Respondent
Judiciary
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Leave and Stay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings meets the threshold for grant of leave.
- 2 Whether the leave granted should operate as a stay of implementation of the debarment decision made on 29/5/2025.
- 3 Whether the matter is urgent and should be certified as such.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant delayed in filing the application, the chamber summons, statutory statement, and verifying affidavit established an arguable prima facie case for judicial review. The application was not frivolous. The court declined to certify the matter as urgent due to the delay but granted leave to apply for judicial review orders of certiorari and prohibition. The court further held that the leave so granted should operate as a stay of implementation of the debarment decision, as failure to grant a stay would render the proceedings academic given the statutory process of gazettement and the time-bound nature of procurement disputes. The court set strict...
Court Disposition
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; leave to operate as stay of implementation of debarment decision; matter not certified as urgent; costs in the cause.
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition as per prayers 2 and 3 of the chamber summons dated 10/6/2025.
- The leave so granted shall operate as a stay of implementation of the decision of the Debarment Committee rendered on 29/5/2025 in respect of tender No. JUD/OT/031/2023/2024 until determination of these proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Cocopan Construction Kenya Limited v Public Procurement Regulatory Board's Department Commitee & 2 others; Judiciary (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E063 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 8203 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (12 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8203 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E063 of 2025
RE Aburili, J
June 12, 2025
Between
Cocopan Construction Kenya Limited
Applicant
and
Public Procurement Regulatory Board's Department Commitee
1st Respondent
Public Procurement Regulatory Board
2nd Respondent
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
3rd Respondent
and
The Judiciary
Interested Party
Ruling
1. I have considered the chamber summons dated 10th June 2025 and filed in court on 11/6/2025 under certificate of urgency. I am unable to find the urgency, owing to the fact that the impugned decision was rendered on 29/5/2025 and the applicant, knowing that these proceedings are time bound, waited until the 13th day to file the challenge.
2. Expedition is key in matters public procurement matters. A party who comes to court at the 11th hour should not expect to get orders in their favour. I decline to certify the matters as urgent.
3. I however find that upon perusal of the chamber summons, statutory statement, verifying affidavit as well the annextures thereto, I am satisfied that the applicant has an arguable prima facie case for consideration on its merit. In other words, the application is not frivolous on the face of it.
4. The applicant seeks leave of court to file judicial review application seeking for certiorari to quash the 1st Respondent’s decision rendered on 29th May 2025 debarring the applicant from undertaking procurement services for a period of three (3) years of the date of the decision.
5. It also prays for leave to apply for prohibition to prohibit the Respondents and especially the 3rd Respondent from implementing the decision of the 1st Respondent Debarment committee of the 2nd and 3rd Respondent’s made on 29/5/2025 by publishing and forwarding to the Cabinet Secretary the details of the exparte applicant and the corresponding period of debarment for gazettement.
6. The applicant also prays that the leave so granted do operate as stay of implementation of the said decision.
7. From the grounds in support and the sworn affidavit of Martin Gitonga Mbae, I am satisfied that the threshold for leave has been met.
8. I grant leave to the applicant to apply in terms of prayers 2 and 3 of the chamber summons dated 10/6/2025. Notice of motion shall be filed and served within 24 hours from the time the Ruling/Order herein is communicated to the exparte applicant herein via phone and email by the Registry.
9. On whether the leave so granted should operate as stay of implementation of the impugned decision made on 29/5/2025, I note that the debarment decision takes a process including gazettement of the said debarment which involves resources by the Government and that these proceedings, if successful, will be rendered academic unless stay is granted.
10. Accordingly, I order that the leave so granted herein shall operate as stay of implementation of the decision of the Debarment Committee rendered on 29/5/2025 in respect of tender No. JUD/OT/031/2023/2024 until these proceedings are heard and determined fully on merit.
11. Owing to the statutory timelines for disposal of these public procurement proceedings which is 45 days from the date of filing, I order that upon service of the Notice of Motion upon the Respondents and Interested Parties, the Respondents and Interested Parties shall have 48 hours within which to file and serve their responses to the Notice of Motion which should be filed in a separate and fresh Judicial Review Application file.
12. The parties will then appear in court virtually on 17/6/2025 for inter partes directions on the mode of disposal of the substantive motion and in the said motion file.
13. Each party to bear their own costs of these proceedings.
14. This file is therefore closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12THDAY OF JUNE, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE