[2023] KEHC 22306 (KLR)
The court found that no substantive application for judicial review had been filed or served by the exparte applicants, despite being granted leave and a 21-day period to do so. The application on record was spent once leave was granted, and subsequent mentions were only to confirm filing of a substantive...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 22306 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Interested Party: Gardens & Wedding Centre Limited; Exparte Applicant: Accounting Officer, The Rift Valley Provincial General Hospital; Exparte Applicant: County Government Of Nakuru, The Rift Valley Provincial General Hospital
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 4 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit
- Outcome
- application disallowed
- Judges
- HM Nyaga
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Timelines, Public Procurement Review, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Public Procurement Administrative Review Board
Respondent
Gardens & Wedding Centre Limited
Interested Party
Accounting Officer, The Rift Valley Provincial General Hospital
Exparte Applicant
County Government Of Nakuru, The Rift Valley Provincial General Hospital
Exparte Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application to Dismiss Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for failure to prosecute within the statutory timelines under Section 175(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
- 2 Whether any decision made outside the statutory 45-day period is a nullity.
- 3 Whether the application to dismiss was necessary in the absence of a substantive application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that no substantive application for judicial review had been filed or served by the exparte applicants, despite being granted leave and a 21-day period to do so. The application on record was spent once leave was granted, and subsequent mentions were only to confirm filing of a substantive application, which never materialised. Therefore, there was no substantive application before the court to be dismissed, rendering the present application unnecessary. The court held that the application to dismiss was disallowed, as there was nothing to dismiss, and made no orders as to costs.
Court Disposition
application disallowed
Orders
- The application dated June 16, 2022 is disallowed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Gardens & Wedding Centre Limited (Interested Party); Accounting Officer, the Rift Valley Provincial General Hospital & another (Exparte Applicants) (Judicial Review 4 of 2020) [2023] KEHC 22306 (KLR) (18 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 22306 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Judicial Review 4 of 2020
HM Nyaga, J
September 18, 2023
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
Public Procurement Administrative Review Board
Respondent
and
Gardens & Wedding Centre Limited
Interested Party
and
Accounting Officer, The Rift Valley Provincial General Hospital
Exparte Applicant
County Government Of Nakuru, The Rift Valley Provincial General Hospital
Exparte Applicant
Ruling
1. Before me is an Application dated June 16, 2022 which seeks the following prayers;1. Spent.2. That this suit be dismissed forthwith.3. That the costs of the application be provided for.
2. The application is based on the grounds set out on its face and is supported by the Affidavit of Daniel Gathogo Mugo.
3. In a nutshell, the applicant states that Section 175 (3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (the Act) provides that Judicial Review Applications made by the High Court against a decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board should be determined within 45 days from the date of filing such application. That the exparte applicants, on February 13, 2020, filed the present suit but have since failed, neglected and/or otherwise failed to take any steps to prosecute the same for a period of 27 months. That any decision made by the court on the said application outside the statutory timelines will be a nullity.
4. The Application was served on the other parties but no responses were filed.
5. From the court record, it is clear that on 2February 5, 2020, the exparte applicant appeared before my elder brother Justice J. Ngugi (as he then was). The Judge granted prayer 2 of the Application dated February 12, 2020, which gave the Applicant 21 days to file a substantive application for Judicial Review.
6. No substantive application has even been filed or served. For non-compliance with the orders of the court, there is no substantive application to deal with. The one on record was dealt with and disposed of when leave was granted. That application was spent. The mentions that took place were, in my view, to confirm the filing of the substantive application, which never materialised.
7. Accordingly, it was not necessary to file the present application. It would have only sufficed if a substantive application had been filed, or if there were stay orders. There are none.
8. Consequently, this application is disallowed with no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023. HESTON M. NYAGAJUDGEIn the presence of;C/A JenifferMr. Sang for Kiprono for ApplicantN/A for Respondent