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

Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board Ex parte Kenya Ports Authority Limited & 2 others [2017] KEHC 8930 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 8930 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8930
Citation
[2017] KEHC 8930 (KLR)
Decided
28 June 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureEx parte application for certiorari and order compelling respondent to give reasonsCoramG V ODUNGA
Holding

The court quashed the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board and ordered it to be removed to the High Court for quashing.

Facts

The applicant, Kenya Ports Authority Limited, sought to quash a decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board regarding a tender. The applicant alleged that the board's decision was based on ambiguous and vague requirements.

Issues

  1. legality of section 175(3) & (5) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposals Act 2015
  2. failure to give reasons for decision

Reasoning

The court held that the failure of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board to give reasons for its decision violated the fundamental principle of natural justice.

Outcome

The decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board was quashed.

Orders

  • removal of the decision to the High Court for quashing
  • each party to bear their own costs

Remedies

  • quashing of the decision

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Public Procurement and Asset Disposals Act No. 33 of 2015
  • Fair Administrative Action Act No. 4 of 2015
Cases cited (1)
  • Republic vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & Another Ex Parte Selex Sistemi Integrati [2008] KLR 728
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