[2018] KEHC 9280 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9280 (KLR)

The High Court held that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction by awarding the tender to UAP Life Assurance Limited, an interested party who had not filed a proper and timely request for review as required by law. The Board further erred by usurping the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 9280 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Respondent: National Hospital Insurance Fund; Respondent: UAP Life Assurance Limited; Respondent: CIC Life Assurance Limited; Applicant: Britam Life Assurance Company (K) Limited; Applicant: Pioneer Assurance Company Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 52 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs awarded to ex parte applicants against first and third respondents.
Judges
JM Mativo
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Public Procurement, Tender Award Disputes, Administrative Action, Statutory Interpretation, Natural Justice
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Judicial Review Public Procurement Tender Award Disputes Administrative Action Statutory Interpretation Natural Justice

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Public Procurement Administrative Review Board

Respondent

National Hospital Insurance Fund

Respondent

UAP Life Assurance Limited

Respondent

CIC Life Assurance Limited

Respondent

Britam Life Assurance Company (K) Limited

Applicant

Pioneer Assurance Company Limited

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted illegally in awarding the tender to an interested party who had not filed a proper request for review.
  2. 2 Whether the Review Board usurped the functions of the procuring entity by awarding the tender to a bidder disqualified by the procuring entity.
  3. 3 Whether the request for review by the interested party was time-barred and/or competent under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction by awarding the tender to UAP Life Assurance Limited, an interested party who had not filed a proper and timely request for review as required by law. The Board further erred by usurping the functions of the procuring entity, disregarding the evaluation criteria, and failing to consider the terms of the tender documents, which required the award to be made to more than one bidder. The Board's decision to treat a letter as a request for review, and to grant substantive relief to a non-principal party, was contrary to statutory requirements and binding Supreme Court...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Orders of certiorari and prohibition granted. Costs awarded to ex parte applicants against first and third respondents.

Orders

  • An order of certiorari is issued quashing the determination and orders of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board delivered on 2nd February, 2018 in Application No. 11 of 2017.
  • All consequential orders arising from the impugned decision are annulled and set aside.