[2025] KEHC 180 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] KEHC 180 (KLR)
Parties: Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Authority; Respondent: Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Debarment Committee; Interested Party: M/S Meditec Systems Limited; Applicant: Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital
Court: High Court
Court Station: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E270 of 2024
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out
Outcome: proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction
Judges: RE Aburili
Legal Topics: Judicial Review Timelines, Public Procurement Debarment, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language: en

Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Timelines Public Procurement Debarment Jurisdiction of High Court

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority

Respondent

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Debarment Committee

Respondent

M/S Meditec Systems Limited

Interested Party

Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out

Legal Issues

1 Whether the application for judicial review was filed within the statutory timelines under the Public Procurement & Asset Disposal Act.
2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain judicial review proceedings filed out of time.
3 Whether failure to file the substantive Notice of Motion within the period granted by the court is fatal to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the ex-parte applicant failed to comply with the statutory timelines for instituting judicial review proceedings as stipulated under Section 42 of the Public Procurement & Asset Disposal Act. The application for leave was filed out of time, and the substantive Notice of Motion was not filed within the period granted by the court. The applicant's counsel conceded to these facts. As a result, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, which were therefore incompetent and liable to be struck out. The court accordingly struck out the proceedings and expunged them from the record, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

The proceedings as filed are struck out and expunged from the record.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

30 paragraphs

Republic v Public Procurement Regulatory Authority & another; M/S Meditec Systems Limited (Interested Party); Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E270 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 180 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (16 January 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 180 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Judicial Review

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E270 of 2024

RE Aburili, J

January 16, 2025

Between

Republic

Applicant

and

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority

1st Respondent

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Debarment Committee

2nd Respondent

and

M/S Meditec Systems Limited

Interested Party

and

Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital

Exparte Applicant

Ruling

1. On 9/12/2024, this court (Jairus Ngaah J) granted leave to the applicant to file and serve a Notice of Motion within 14 days of that date.

2. Todate, no Notice of Motion has been filed. Even excluding 21st December 2024 to 13th January 2025, the time for filing of the Notice of Motion lapsed.

3. Besides, Section 42 of the Public Procurement & Asset Disposal Act provides for the time within which Judicial Review proceedings may be initiated in the High Court, from the date of the decision on debarment pursuant to proceedings under Section 4 of the Act.

4. The decision sought to be impugned was made on 8/8/2024 while the Chamber Summons for leave was filed on 22/11/2024.

5. The ex-parte applicant’s Counsel concedes that filing was out of time and therefore there being no jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine stale proceedings, and as no Notice of Motion would be filed and even if filed, would be stale by dint of Section 42 of the Act, I hereby down my tools and proceed to strike out the proceedings as filed and expunge them from the record, with no orders as to costs.

6. This file is hereby closed.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025R.E. ABURILIJUDGE

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.