[2022] KEHC 1135 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 1135 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the Board acted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in its decision to uphold the termination of the procurement process. The Board was entitled to consider confidential government correspondence under the Public Procurement and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 1135 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Intertek Testing Services (EA) Pty Limited & Authentix Inc; Respondent: Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Respondent: Office of the Attorney General; Interested Party: Accounting Officer, Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority; Interested Party: Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
17 March 2022
Case Number
Judicial Review E013 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
N Ndungu
Legal Topics
Public Procurement, Judicial Review, Fair Administrative Action, Tender Termination, Natural Justice, Government Policy
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Judicial Review Fair Administrative Action Tender Termination Natural Justice Government Policy

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Intertek Testing Services (EA) Pty Limited & Authentix Inc

Applicant

Public Procurement Administrative Review Board

Respondent

Office of the Attorney General

Respondent

Accounting Officer, Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority

Interested Party

Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the procurement process met the requirements under section 63 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were denied a fair hearing by the Board's reliance on confidential documents not availed to them.
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted with procedural impropriety or exceeded its jurisdiction in framing issues for determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the Board acted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in its decision to uphold the termination of the procurement process. The Board was entitled to consider confidential government correspondence under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, and the applicants did not take steps to seek disclosure of these documents. The Board's framing of issues was based on the pleadings and material before it, and there was no evidence of breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness. The court further held that granting the orders sought would not be efficacious given the change in government policy and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.