' REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO E142 OF 2025
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATIVE
REVEIW BOARD.…………………………………………………..…. 1 ST RESPONDENT
WORLD STANDARDIZATION, CERTIFICATION AND
TESTING GROUP (SHENZHEN) CO. LTD…………………………2 ND RESPONDENT
AND
QUALITY INSPECTION SERVICES JAPAN………..……..1 ST INTERESTED PARTY
CHINA HANSOM INSPECTION AND
CERTIFICATE CO. LTD…………………………..………….2 ND INTERESTED PARTY
ASTC AS TEST CERTIFICATION
TECH (HANGZHOU) CO. LTD………………………………3 RD INTERESTED PARTY
CHINA CERTIFICATION AND INSPECTION
GROUP CO. LTD………………………………………...…….4 TH INTERESTED PARTY
INTERTEK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED…………………5 TH INTERESTED PARTY
COTECNA INSPECTION SA…………………………………..6 TH INTERESTE PARTY
TUV RHEINLAND…………………………………………….7 TH INTERESTED PARTY
BUREAU VERITAS……………………………………………8 TH INTERESTED PARTY
SGS SA…………………………………………………………..9 TH INTERESTED PARTY
AND
THE ACCOUNTING OFFICER, KENYA BUREAU
OF STANDARDS…………………………………………….1 ST EX PARTE APPLICANT
KENYA BUREAU OF STANDARDS………………………2 ND EX PARTE APPLICANT
RULING
This matter was before me under certificate of urgency on 5/11/2025. The court did not certify it as urgent but proceeded to give directions on the effecting of service upon the Respondents and Interested Parties and timelines thereof.
The Applicant did not seek for stay in the originating motion. An application for stay under Rule 14 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules has been filed under certificate of urgency and it is dated 5/11/2025.
I have perused the application for stay as supported by the affidavit of Jane Ndinya on 5/11/2025. I am satisfied that it is urgent, and i hereby certify it as urgent.
On whether an interim stay of enforcement of the impugned decision of 27/10/2025 made by the 1 st Respondent should be granted, I observe that the decision as impugned is time bound and it takes effect within 14 days of the date of the decision.
The decision directs the exparte applicant to complete the procurement process within 30 days of the date of the decision meaning, before these proceedings are determined which is in the next 45 days of the date of filing.
In my view, these proceeding shall be rendered academic if the stay sought to preserve the status quo is not granted. In the circumstances, and so as to allow all the parties to ventilate the dispute fully without prejudicing any party to the procurement process, I hereby grant stay of implementation of the 1 st Respondent’s decision of 27/10/2025 until these proceedings which are strictly time bound by statute are heard and determined on merit.
The directions given on 5/11/2025 on service and timelines for compliance still stand.
I so order.
Dated, Signed & Delivered in chambers at Nairobi this 6 th Day of November, 2025
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE
'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO E142 OF 2025
REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATIVE
REVEIW BOARD.…………………………………………………..…. 1 ST RESPONDENT
WORLD STANDARDIZATION, CERTIFICATION AND
TESTING GROUP (SHENZHEN) CO. LTD…………………………2 ND RESPONDENT
AND
QUALITY INSPECTION SERVICES JAPAN………..……..1 ST INTERESTED PARTY
CHINA HANSOM INSPECTION AND
CERTIFICATE CO. LTD…………………………..………….2 ND INTERESTED PARTY
ASTC AS TEST CERTIFICATION
TECH (HANGZHOU) CO. LTD………………………………3 RD INTERESTED PARTY
CHINA CERTIFICATION AND INSPECTION
GROUP CO. LTD………………………………………...…….4 TH INTERESTED PARTY
INTERTEK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED…………………5 TH INTERESTED PARTY
COTECNA INSPECTION SA…………………………………..6 TH INTERESTE PARTY
TUV RHEINLAND…………………………………………….7 TH INTERESTED PARTY
BUREAU VERITAS……………………………………………8 TH INTERESTED PARTY
SGS SA…………………………………………………………..9 TH INTERESTED PARTY
AND
THE ACCOUNTING OFFICER, KENYA BUREAU
OF STANDARDS…………………………………………….1 ST EX PARTE APPLICANT
KENYA BUREAU OF STANDARDS………………………2 ND EX PARTE APPLICANT
RULING
This matter was before me under certificate of urgency on 5/11/2025. The court did not certify it as urgent but proceeded to give directions on the effecting of service upon the Respondents and Interested Parties and timelines thereof.
The Applicant did not seek for stay in the originating motion. An application for stay under Rule 14 of the Fair Administrative Action Rules has been filed under certificate of urgency and it is dated 5/11/2025.
I have perused the application for stay as supported by the affidavit of Jane Ndinya on 5/11/2025. I am satisfied that it is urgent, and i hereby certify it as urgent.
On whether an interim stay of enforcement of the impugned decision of 27/10/2025 made by the 1 st Respondent should be granted, I observe that the decision as impugned is time bound and it takes effect within 14 days of the date of the decision.
The decision directs the exparte applicant to complete the procurement process within 30 days of the date of the decision meaning, before these proceedings are determined which is in the next 45 days of the date of filing.
In my view, these proceeding shall be rendered academic if the stay sought to preserve the status quo is not granted. In the circumstances, and so as to allow all the parties to ventilate the dispute fully without prejudicing any party to the procurement process, I hereby grant stay of implementation of the 1 st Respondent’s decision of 27/10/2025 until these proceedings which are strictly time bound by statute are heard and determined on merit.
The directions given on 5/11/2025 on service and timelines for compliance still stand.
I so order.
Dated, Signed & Delivered in chambers at Nairobi this 6 th Day of November, 2025
R.E. ABURILI
JUDGE
'