Kenya Case Law

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Peesam Limited & another (Exparte Applicants); Accounting Officer Kenya Revenue Authority & another (Interested Parties)

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Peesam Limited & another (Exparte Applicants); Accounting Officer Kenya Revenue Authority & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 1866 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2025

Judge

JM Chigiti

The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board's decision dated December 31, 2024, was illogical and failed the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, as it acknowledged budgetary constraints while simultaneously directing the procurement process to proceed to its logical conclusion without resolving the funding issue, rendering the decision incapable of implementation and thus illegal.

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review
• Tender Termination
• Fair Administrative Action
• Statutory Interpretation
• Supervisory Jurisdiction

Republic v Procurement Administrative Review Board; Kenya Revenue Authority & Accounting Officer Kenya Revenue Authority (Exparte Applicant); Peesam Limited & another (Interested Parties)

Republic v Procurement Administrative Review Board; Kenya Revenue Authority & Accounting Officer Kenya Revenue Authority (Exparte Applicant); Peesam Limited & another (Interested Parties) [2024] KEHC 16332 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E143 of 2024

Judge

JM Chigiti

The High Court found that the Applicants had, in fact, complied with the procedural requirements of section 63(2) and (3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act by uploading the termination report on the Public Procurement Information Portal (PPIP) within the statutory period, as evidenced by annexures before the court. The Respondent (PPARB) erred in law by finding non-compliance and assuming jurisdiction to review the termination, contrary to section 167(4)(b) of the Act, which ousts such jurisdiction where termination is compliant with section 63. The court further held that the…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review
• Tender Termination
• Administrative Decisions
• Fair Administrative Action
• Statutory Compliance

Republic v Accounting Officer/ Chief Officer Department of Urban Development County Government of Machakos & another; Seluk Investments Limited (Exparte Applicant)

Republic v Accounting Officer/ Chief Officer Department of Urban Development County Government of Machakos & another; Seluk Investments Limited (Exparte Applicant) [2024] KEHC 6768 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review Application 2 of 2024

Judge

FROO Olel

The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a county tender’s termination and re-advertisement, holding the procurement process was lawful and fair.

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review Scope
• Tender Termination
• Mandamus And Prohibition
• Legitimate Expectation
• Fair Administrative Action

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another; Board of Trustees Kenya National Examinations Council Staff Retirements Benefits Scheme, 2011 & another (Exparte); Octagon Pension Services Limited & another (Interested Parties)

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another; Board of Trustees Kenya National Examinations Council Staff Retirements Benefits Scheme, 2011 & another (Exparte); Octagon Pension Services Limited & another (Interested Parties) [2024] KEHC 6327 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Application E075 of 2024

Judge

J Ngaah

The High Court held that the Board's decision to annul the termination of the procurement process was not irrational, illegal, or procedurally improper, except for the order requiring a fresh financial evaluation of tenders. The court found that the Board had jurisdiction to review the termination because the procuring entity failed to meet all substantive and procedural requirements under section 63(1)(e) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. The reasons for termination—material governance issues—were not sufficiently established as relating to the current procurement, and the in…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review Process
• Tender Termination
• Administrative Tribunals
• Fair Administrative Action

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others; Astronea Construction Limited (Exparte Applicant)

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others; Astronea Construction Limited (Exparte Applicant) [2024] KEHC 1429 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Civil Application E143 of 2023

Judge

JM Chigiti

The High Court quashed the procurement board’s dismissal of a review challenge and ordered the dispute reheard afresh before a different board.

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review
• Tender Termination
• Mandamus
• Certiorari
• Procedural Fairness

Shemax Consult Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; National Health Insurance Fund (Interested Party)

Shemax Consult Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; National Health Insurance Fund (Interested Party) [2024] KEHC 150 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Civil Application E196 of 2023

Judge

JM Chigiti

The court found that the Respondent (Public Procurement Administrative Review Board) acted within its jurisdiction and complied with both statutory and constitutional requirements in handling the Applicant's Request for Review. The court held that the Procuring Entity lawfully terminated the subject tenders in accordance with Section 63 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, including providing the required notifications and reports. The Respondent's decision was not tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate any error o…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement Review
• Judicial Review Standards
• Tender Termination
• Administrative Action
• Procurement Regulations

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another; Accounting Officer, Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (Exparte)

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another; Accounting Officer, Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (Exparte) [2022] KEHC 11549 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review Application E040 of 2022

Judge

AK Ndung'u

The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a procurement review board decision, holding the applicant raised no reviewable illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review Standards
• Tender Termination
• Administrative Tribunals
• Fair Administrative Action
• Public-procurement

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & Office of the Attorney General Ex parte Intertek Testing Services(EA) Pty Limited & Authentix Inc; Accounting Officer, Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority & Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & Office of the Attorney General Ex parte Intertek Testing Services(EA) Pty Limited & Authentix Inc; Accounting Officer, Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority & Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority [2022] KEHC 1135 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E013 of 2022

Judge

N Ndungu

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 tha…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Judicial Review
• Fair Administrative Action
• Tender Termination
• Natural Justice
• Government Policy

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Rhombus Construction Company Limited (Interested Party); Rhombus Construction Company Limited & another (Exparte); Mwangemi (Contemnor)

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Rhombus Construction Company Limited (Interested Party); Rhombus Construction Company Limited & another (Exparte); Mwangemi (Contemnor) [2021] KEHC 301 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Judicial Review E002 of 2021

Judge

JM Mativo

The High Court dismissed an application to commit a Kenya Ports Authority accounting officer for contempt over a procurement dispute, finding no willful disobedience proved.

• Public Procurement
• Contempt Of Court
• Judicial Review Procedure
• Tender Termination
• Statutory Compliance
• Contempt-of-court

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board;Principal Secretary, State Department of Interior, Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government (Interested Party) ; Ex Parte Applicant CMC Motors Group Limited

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board;Principal Secretary, State Department of Interior, Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government (Interested Party) ; Ex Parte Applicant CMC Motors Group Limited [2020] KEHC 9181 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 284 of 2019

Judge

JM Mativo

The court held that judicial review is limited to assessing the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. The termination of the tender by the Interested Party was found to be lawful and consistent with section 63(1)(d) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, as there was sufficient evidence that the bid prices were above market prices. The Respondent's decision was not tainted by illegality, unreasonableness, irrationality, or bad faith. However, the court found that the Interested Party acted unlawfully by re-advertising the tender before th…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Public Procurement
• Tender Termination
• Fair Administrative Action
• Legitimate Expectation
• Statutory Compliance