[2018] KEHC 9046 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9046 (KLR)

The court held that the delay in filing the substantive motion was minimal and excusable due to counsel's bona fide mistake, and thus enlarged time to validate the motion. On the substantive issue, the court found that the Board had jurisdiction to entertain the second request for review because the High Court's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 9046 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Applicant: Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation; Interested Party: Surestep Systems and Solutions Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 April 2018
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 37 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GV Odunga, P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Public Procurement Review, Tender Evaluation, Judicial Review Procedure, Due Diligence Requirements, Contract Negotiation, Enlargement of Time
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Public Procurement Review Tender Evaluation Judicial Review Procedure Due Diligence Requirements Contract Negotiation Enlargement of Time

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Public Procurement Administrative Review Board

Respondent

Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation

Applicant

Surestep Systems and Solutions Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should enlarge time for filing the substantive motion despite a one-day delay.
  2. 2 Whether the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board had jurisdiction to entertain the second request for review after the High Court's directions on negotiations.
  3. 3 Whether the procuring entity (ICDC) was entitled to conduct due diligence at the negotiation stage after award of tender.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the delay in filing the substantive motion was minimal and excusable due to counsel's bona fide mistake, and thus enlarged time to validate the motion. On the substantive issue, the court found that the Board had jurisdiction to entertain the second request for review because the High Court's earlier judgment allowed for negotiations and, if unsuccessful, permitted the procuring entity to invite the next highest scorer. The court determined that ICDC erred by conducting due diligence at the negotiation stage after the award, as due diligence is only permitted after evaluation and before award under section 83 of the Act. The Board was correct in finding that ICDC's...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2018 is dismissed.
  • Time for filing and service of the substantive motion is enlarged to validate the already filed motion.