Revital Health (EPZ) Limited v Public Procurement Oversight Authority & 6 others [2015] KEHC 56 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 56
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 56 (KLR)
- Decided
- 29 October 2015
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional PetitionPostureAppeal from the original trial outcomeCoramEDWARD M. MURIITHI, M. J. ANYARA EMUKULE (MBS)
Holding
The Court finds sections 6(1) and 7(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005 (PPDA) constitutional.
Facts
The Petitioner, Revital Health (EPZ) Limited, was unsuccessful in a tender for the supply of syringes. The tender was conducted under the Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005 (PPDA) and the funding was from the International Development Association.
Issues
- Whether the provisions of section 6(1) and 7(1) of PPDA are unconstitutional.
- Whether the PPDA applies to the procurement the subject of this petition.
- Whether Clause 38.3 of the 2nd Respondent’s Tender is unconstitutional.
Reasoning
The Court considers the Constitutionality of the Act and the provisions in question, finding that the Act does not violate the principles of fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective procurement as required by Article 227 of the Constitution.
Outcome
The Petitioner is entitled to damages for breach of its constitutional right to fair administrative action.
Orders
- The 2nd respondent will pay to the petitioner its Costs of the Petition and the other parties will bear their own Costs.
- The quantum of damages for breach by the 2nd Respondent of the petitioner’s right to fair administrative action will be determined upon presentation by the parties of submissions thereon together with any relevant affidavits as the parties may wish to present.
Remedies
- Damages for breach of constitutional right to fair administrative action.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005
- Constitution of Kenya 2010
Cases cited (1)
- Samuel Momanyi v. AG & Anor. Pet. No. 341 of 2011
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…