Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) v National Super Alliance (NASA) Kenya & 6 others (Civil Appeal 224 of 2017) [2017] KECA 436 (KLR) (20 July 2017) (Judgment)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 436
- Citation
- [2017] KECA 436 (KLR)
- Decided
- 20 July 2017
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the High Court judgmentCoramE. M. Githinji, Al Nashir Visram, R. N. Nambuye, J. Mohammed, J. Otieno-Odek
Holding
Judicial review orders are discretionary and the High Court erred in finding that public participation is mandatory in direct procurement.
Facts
The case involves the procurement of election materials by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the National Super Alliance (NASA) contesting the legality of the procurement process.
Issues
- whether public participation is a mandatory requirement in direct procurement
- whether timelines for elections are an operational issue
- whether direct procurement is a viable option
- whether the contract is indivisible
- whether a party can be held responsible for lost time
- whether national values are justiciable
- whether a judicial review application can be considered a constitutional petition
- whether exceptions to the rule on certiorari orders exist
- whether newspaper cuttings are admissible evidence
- whether the burden of proof for a special relationship is established
Reasoning
The Court of Appeal held that public participation is a mandatory requirement in public procurement but its scope varies by method. Direct procurement has a reduced scope for participation.
Outcome
The appeal is allowed, the High Court's judgment is set aside, and the orders of certiorari and mandamus are set aside.
Orders
- Judgment of the High Court set aside in part
- Cross-Appeal dismissed
Remedies
- Judgment of the High Court set aside
- Orders of certiorari and mandamus set aside
Authorities cited
Legislation (3)
- Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015
- Procurement Regulations 2005
- Evidence Act
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.
Loading judgment…