SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY v DE LA RUE CURRENCY AND SECURITY PRINT LTD & 2 others [2009] KECA 252 (KLR)

[2009] KECA 252 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
252
Citation
[2009] KECA 252 (KLR)
Decided
3 July 2009
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for stay of execution pending appealCoramS. E. O. BOSIRE, E. M. GITHINJI, ALNASHIR VISRAM
Holding

The appeal is arguable and the orders sought are not rendered nugatory if granted.

Facts

The Kenya Revenue Authority issued an invitation to tender for the printing, supply and delivery of self-adhesive stamps. The 1st respondent, De La Rue Currency and Security Print Ltd, submitted a bid which was unsuccessful. The 1st respondent then filed a Request for Review before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, which dismissed the appeal. The 1st respondent subsequently filed a judicial review application in the High Court, seeking to quash the decision and award the tender to the 1st respondent.

Issues

  1. whether the 1st respondent was entitled to a 'margin of preference' under the law
  2. whether the goods manufactured by the 1st respondent were only for export purposes
  3. whether the 1st respondent had suffered 'prejudice' in the evaluation of the tender

Reasoning

The court found the appeal arguable and that the orders sought are not rendered nugatory if granted, as the applicant would still be required to follow the law.

Outcome

The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal Act
  • Public Procurement and Disposal Regulations
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case