[2025] KEHC 914 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 914 (KLR)

The court found that the application dated 1/2/2025 was incompetent because it was not certified as urgent and did not contain a specific prayer for review of the Ruling of 16/1/2025, despite oral submissions by counsel. The absence of a formal prayer for review rendered the application procedurally defective. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 914 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Moi Teaching And Referral Hospital; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Authority; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Debartment Committee; Interested Party: M/S Meditec Systems Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E270 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application
Outcome
application struck out as incompetent
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Judicial Review Procedure
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Judicial Review Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moi Teaching And Referral Hospital

Applicant

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority

Respondent

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Debartment Committee

Respondent

M/S Meditec Systems Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Preliminary Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 1/2/2025 was urgent and properly before the court.
  2. 2 Whether there was a prayer for review of the Ruling of 16/1/2025 in the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application dated 1/2/2025 was incompetent because it was not certified as urgent and did not contain a specific prayer for review of the Ruling of 16/1/2025, despite oral submissions by counsel. The absence of a formal prayer for review rendered the application procedurally defective. The court emphasized that relief cannot be granted where it is not specifically sought in the pleadings, and that urgency must be demonstrated and certified for such applications to be considered. Consequently, the application was struck out for incompetence, with no orders as to costs.

Court Disposition

application struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The application dated 1/2/2025 is struck out for being incompetent.
  • No orders as to costs.