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

Vickers Security Services Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others (Civil Appeal E143 & E150 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KECA 671 (KLR) (11 April 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KECA 671 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
671
Citation
[2025] KECA 671 (KLR)
Decided
11 April 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the High Court's judgment dismissing judicial review applicationsCoramW. KARANJA, K. M'INOTI, K. ACHODE
Holding

Allow the consolidated appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and substitute an order allowing the judicial review application

Facts

Vickers Security Services Limited challenged the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board's decision to nullify a procurement process. The Board had raised and considered issues not raised in Vickers' request for review.

Issues

  1. whether the Board had jurisdiction to consider unpleaded issues not raised in the request for review
  2. whether the Board's decision was irrational and in excess of its jurisdiction
  3. whether the Board's decision was lawfully made

Reasoning

The High Court erred in law by allowing the Board to consider unpleaded issues and in interpreting the Board's jurisdiction under section 167 of the Act.

Outcome

Allow the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and substitute an order allowing the judicial review application

Orders

  • allow the consolidated application for judicial review
  • issue an order of certiorari and quash the Board's decision
  • compel KRA and its Accounting Officer to award the tender in accordance with the Letter of Intention to Award tender

Remedies

  • Vickers and KRA shall have the costs in the High Court and in this Court

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal Act No. 33 of 2015
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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case