REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC.APPLICATION NO. E142 OF 2025
REPUBLIC………………………….…………..…..………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 INTERESTED 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
JUDGMENT
1. For determination is the Originating Motion dated 3 rd November 2025 and filed on 5 th November 2025, supported by the affidavit sworn by Jane Ndinya on 3rd November 2025. The applicants who are the Accounting Officer and the Procuring entity, Kenya Bureau of Standards respectively. They seek the following orders:
a. Spent.
b. spent
c. That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the 1 st Respondent made on 27 th October, 2025 in Public Procurement Administrative Review Board Application No. 98 of 2025 World Standardization, Certification & Testing Group (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd VS The Accounting Officer, Kenya Bureau of Standards and Kenya Bureau of Standards in its entirety and all consequential actions arising from the said Decision.
d. That Costs and further incidentals of this Application be provided for.
2. The Applicant’s case is that the 2 nd Respondent submitted its bid in respect of the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant’s Tender No. KEBS/PRE-Q/T006/2025/2028 – Pre-Qualifications for Provision of Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVOC) to Standards Services for the Year 2025–2028.
3. That upon evaluation of the mandatory and technical requirements of the Tender, the 2 nd Respondent emerged successful for pre-qualification subject to conduct of a due diligence exercise.
4. The Applicant states that the duly appointed Evaluation Committee conducted a due diligence exercise and submitted a report recommending disqualification of the 2 nd Respondent on account of material information arising from the performance of a previous contract with the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant.
5. It is urged that by a letter dated 23 rd September 2025, the 2 nd Respondent was informed that it had not been prequalified for reasons that despite having met the minimum requirements for prequalification during the due diligence exercise, it was noted that the Applicant had on several occasions breached the ongoing contract with the 2 nd Respondent. This according to the Applicants is in line with Section 83(2) of the Public procurement and Asset Disposal Act, Cap 412C of the Laws of Kenya (PPADA).
6. The 2 nd Respondent is said to have proceeded to file a Request for Review dated 6 th October, 2025 in Public Procurement Administrative Review Board Application No. 98 of 2025 World Standardization, Certification & Testing Group (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd vs. The Accounting Officer, Kenya Bureau of Standards and Kenya Bureau of Standards. In its decision on 27 th October, 2025 the 1 st Respondent is said to have nullified and set aside the Letter of Notification of Intention to Award dated 23 rd September 2025 in respect of Tender No. KEBS/PRE-Q/T006/2025/2028 and expunged, as null and void, the portions of the due diligence report of 7 th September 2025 and the professional opinion of 22 nd September 2025 relating to the 2 nd Respondent’s disqualification.
7. It is urged that it also directed the 1 st Ex parte Applicant to re-convene the Evaluation Committee and conduct a fresh due diligence exercise on the Applicant in strict compliance with the tender documents, the law, the Constitution, and the Board’s findings within twenty-one (21) days. The Board is said to have further ordered the 1 st Ex parte Applicant to conclude the procurement process, including issuing awards to all successful bidders, within thirty (30) days from the date of the Board’s decision.
8. It is the Ex parte Applicants’ case that at paragraphs 141 and 142 of it’s Decision, the 1 st Respondent acted outside its jurisdiction as provided under Section 28 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act by pronouncing itself over the show cause letter for alleged breaches of the contract dated 14 th July, 2025 issued by the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant in a contract stemming from a previous procurement proceeding and which issue is the subject of judicial proceedings in Milimani High Court Commercial Cases No. E632 of 2025 and E608 World Standardization, Certification & Testing Group (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd VS Kenya Bureau of Standards.
9. That further, the 1 st Respondent’s Decision constitutes a material error of law for holding that the Evaluation Committee was mandated to accord the 2 nd Respondent an opportunity to respond to the contents of confidential references contrary to Regulation 30(d) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Regulations, 2020 and Sections 67(1)(c) and 83(2) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, cap 412 of the Laws of Kenya.
10. That the averments of paragraph 13 of the Replying Affidavit sworn by Philemon Kiprop materially depart from the 1 st Respondent’s Decision of 27 th October, 2025 wherein in paragraph 146 of the Decision, the 1 st Respondent categorically stated that “we examined all the confidential documents submitted to the Board and observed that the letters dated 14 th July, 2025 and 25 th July, 2025, which were presented to the Evaluation Committee as evidence of alleged breaches by the Applicant, were not included among the Confidential Documents availed to the Board. Vide letter advanced via email dated 16 th October 2025, the Board through the Board Secretary sought for the aforementioned letters as guided under Section 67(3)(e) of the Act but the same have not been availed to date”.
11. The Applicants state that for avoidance of doubt, the letter dated 16 th October, 2025 presented the request as follows: “Upon review of the Due Diligence Report signed on 7 th September, 2025, the Review Board notes that Evaluation Committee at page 5 of 38 of the said report makes reference to letters referenced KEBS/OP/68/VOL1(20) dated 14 th July, 2025 and KEBS/LEG1/101/VOL1 dated 25 th July, 2025 which were not submitted as part of the confidential documents. The purpose of this letter is to request that you urgently submit the aforementioned referenced letters…”.
12. According to the Applicants by holding that the Evaluation Committee failed to accord the 2 nd Respondent a fair hearing, the 1 st Respondent in paragraphs 141 and 142 misconstrued the mandate of the Evaluation Committee in the context of Section 83(2) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, Cap 412C. The Evaluation Committee is mandated to make its own decision over any confidential references obtained and there is no requirement to reveal the contents of such information to the bidders, subject of evaluation.
13. The 1 st Respondent’s Decision it is urged constitutes a material error of law for requiring the Evaluation Committee to accord the 2 nd Respondent a hearing over allegations of contract breaches. The Applicants state that the mandate of the Evaluation Committee under Section 83(2) did not extend to a merit review over actions and decisions made in the context of a contractual relationship between the 2 nd Respondent and the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant.
14. They state that the finding by the 1 st Respondent, at paragraph 146 of its Decision, that they failed to provide certain documents in the confidential bundle is unsettling. This request for confidential documents it is urged was sent on 16 th October, 2025 at 12.38pm to the Ex parte Applicants’ counsel’s email address gachaguat@kebs.org and copied to the departmental email Procurement@kebs.org.
15. That counsel responded to the said email on the same day, 16 th October, 2025 at 12.48pm attaching the two requested letters being KEBS/OP/68/VOL1(20) dated 14 th July, 2025 and KEBS/LEG1/101/VOL1 dated 25 th July, 2025 and secondary to the advance copies sent on email, the Applicants’ procurement officer delivered physical copies to the 1 st Respondent on 21 st October, 2025.
16. It is urged that the Decision by the 1 st Respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations including Confidential Documents presented on behalf of the Applicants to the 1 st Respondent by email of 16 th October, 2025 thereby denying them an opportunity to state their case leading to a flawed Decision.
17. The Applicants state that the ecision of the 1 st Respondent is irrational and unreasonable for directing that the procurement proceedings be concluded within 30 days and an award of contract be made whereas as the subject proceedings concern a pre-qualification, a secondary procurement process must be conducted to enable award of contract which process cannot be possibly completed in 30 days.
18. They also urge that the Decision of the 1 st Respondent is influenced by irrelevant considerations as the Orders relating to conclusion of the procurement process in relation to other successful bidders has no direct correlation to the matters in issue in the Request for Review before the 1 st Respondent.
The 1 st Respondent’s Replying Affidavit
19. In response the 1 st Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by Mr. Philemon Kiprop who introduces himself as the Secretary of the 1 st Respondent on 11 th November 2025. Mr Kiprop deposes that on 6 th October 2025, the 2 nd Respondent filed Request for Review No. 98 of 2025 challenging its non-prequalification under Pre-qualification Reference No. KEBS/PRE-Q/T006/2025/2028 for PVOC services for 2025–2028, seeking annulment of the disqualification decision contained in the letter dated 23 rd September 2025, directions for its pre-qualification and directions for invitation to tender for it together with other pre-qualified bidders, costs arising from, and incidental to, the Request for Review, and any other appropriate relief
20. That upon hearing the matter, the 1 st Respondent exercised its statutory mandate under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and, on 27 th October 2025, issued final orders nullifying the letter of notification dated 23 rd September 2025, expunging from the due diligence report of 7 th September 2025 and the subsequent professional opinion of 22 nd September 2025 all contents relating to the reasons for the Applicant’s disqualification, directing a fresh due diligence exercise strictly in accordance with the law and the tender document to be conducted within twenty-one days, directing conclusion of the procurement process including award within thirty days, clarifying that the expunging and fresh due diligence orders applied only to the Applicant’s bid for Zone 1 (China), and ordering each party to bear its own costs.
21. The 1 st Respondent maintains that its decision was neither irrational nor ultra vires, having been reached after considering all pleadings, documents, submissions, authorities, and confidential material submitted under section 67(3)(e) of the Act, and in line with prior High Court decisions, and it identified for determination the issues of jurisdiction, the lawfulness of the due diligence exercise, and the appropriate reliefs.
22. On jurisdiction, the 1 st Respondent states that it found that the Request for Review was filed within the fourteen-day statutory period under section 167(1) of the Act, the notification letter having been received on 23 rd September 2025 and the Request filed on 6 th October 2025, and further held that the doctrine of sub judice did not apply despite the existence of Nairobi High Court Commercial Cases Nos. E608 of 2025 and E632 of 2025, as those matters concerned alleged contractual breaches while the Request for Review related to the propriety of the due diligence process, thereby leaving its jurisdiction intact.
23. Addressing the conduct of due diligence, the 1 st Respondent states that it reviewed two due diligence reports dated 16 th August 2025 and 7 th September 2025, noting that the first recommended the 2 nd Respondent for prequalification while the second introduced adverse findings based on alleged breaches arising from a separate contract, and it therefore focused on the latter report pursuant to its mandate under section 173 of the Act.
24. That upon interrogating the process leading to the second report, the 1 st Respondent found that the 2 nd Respondent had been disqualified without being afforded an opportunity to be heard on the adverse allegations, contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act, and binding precedent, including Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Rhombus Construction Company Limited (Interested Party) Ex parte Kenya Ports Authority & Another [2021] KEHC 8109 (KLR) where the court is said to have underscored the obligation of administrative bodies to observe the right to fair administrative action.
25. The 1 st Respondent’s position is that its finding of a lack of due process by the Evaluation Committee was based on its review of the confidential record, which revealed that key correspondences relied on to disqualify the 2 nd Respondent were not availed, and that although the Applicants availed the letters dated 14 th and 25 th July 2025 were produced, there was no documented paper trail demonstrating how the Evaluation Committee obtained them.
26. That as an independent unit, the Evaluation Committee ought to have formally requested for such documents from the Accounting Officer and received formal written responses, and the absence of this chain of communication contravened section 64 of the Act, undermined transparency and accountability, impeded verification of the second due diligence process, and raised serious concerns about the integrity of its findings.
27. The 1 st Respondent further notes that there was no documentation showing how information on the alleged contractual breaches by the 2 nd Respondent was obtained, as there was neither evidence of a formal request by the Evaluation Committee nor any correspondence forwarding such information, thereby casting doubt on the independence, transparency, and procedural integrity of the second due diligence exercise.
28. This concern is said to have been reinforced by the fact that an earlier due diligence report dated 16 th August 2025 had found the 2 nd Respondent qualified for prequalification, while the subsequent report of 7 th September 2025, which introduced adverse findings, was procedurally flawed and lacked transparency, justifying the conclusions reached in Request for Review No. 98 of 2025.
29. Accordingly, the 1 st Respondent maintains that it properly found the second due diligence exercise to be tainted by procedural irregularities and breaches of fairness, impartiality, and accountability, and lawfully expunged the impugned portions of the due diligence report and professional opinion, nullifying the Letter of Notification to Award. It emphasizes that it acted strictly within its jurisdiction under sections 28 and 173 of the Act, did not determine any contractual disputes, and referred to the show-cause letter of 14 th July 2025 only to assess whether it was lawfully and fairly used in the evaluation process, without encroaching on matters before other courts.
30. The 1 st Respondent further states that the Evaluation Committee was bound by Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and that its functions under section 83(2) of the Act do not exclude adherence to natural justice, rather, they require fairness and reasonableness where a bidder faces disqualification. It clarifies that it did not require unlawful disclosure of confidential information, but merely held that adverse material could not be relied upon without procedural fairness, thereby harmonizing the Act with constitutional fair hearing principles.
31. The 1 st Respondent further states that the Evaluation Committee was bound by Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and that its functions under section 83(2) of the Act do not exclude adherence to natural justice, rather, they require fairness and reasonableness where a bidder faces disqualification. It clarifies that before relying on adverse material to a bidder's detriment, the Evaluation Committee had to ensure procedural fairness. It is urged that the 1 st Respondent's decision therefore harmonized Section 83(2) of the Act with Article 47 of the Constitution and the principle of fair hearing recognized by the courts.
32. Finally, the 1 st Respondent avers that its decision considered all relevant material, was reasoned and evidence-based, and that the timelines it directed were lawful, efficient, and non-prejudicial and pursuant to section 173(b) and (c). It maintains that its orders neither exceeded jurisdiction nor caused prejudice, and that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or unfairness in the decision-making process.
The 2 nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit
33. The 2 nd Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 10 th October 2025 by Harold Amaya Munala. He deposes that the present motion is fatally defective for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 175 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
34. That in their regret letter dated 23 rd September 2025 the Applicants’ sole reason for disqualifying it was the 2 nd Respondent had on several occasions breached its contract with the 2 nd Applicant. It is urged that the contract that was advertised was an ongoing contract between the parties. However, that the Applicants maliciously and deliberately failed to disclose material facts to it with respect to the alleged breaches.
35. It is the 2 nd Respondents case that the basis of the alleged breaches was inter alia the Applicants’ show cause letter dated 14 th July 2025 addressed to it, through which the 2 nd Respondent purported to raise concerns regarding the alleged distribution of substandard sockets in the market.
36. In the said letter, the Applicants are said to have required the 2 nd Respondent to furnish a written explanation within seven (7) days of its issuance. However, that the letter was dispatched and served on the 2 nd Respondent via email only on 23 rd July 2025, which was two (2) days after the lapse of the seven (7) days within which the 2 nd Respondent was required to respond.
37. That the belated transmission of the notice clearly demonstrated the Applicants’ malice and premeditated action, and as such the Board could not have arrived at a just decision without looking at the circumstances surrounding the 2 nd Respondent’s disqualification in which the letter of 14 th July 2025 was key.
38. The 2 nd Respondent’s case is that the Board did not breach section 28 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, as the provision expressly sets out the Board’s powers and functions, which were properly exercised. It contends that confidentiality does not shield the Evaluation Committee from scrutiny and that the Board was entitled to investigate whether the Committee’s actions met the required standards of openness, objectivity, fairness, and transparency.
39. The 2 nd Respondent further maintains that the Applicants failed to identify any specific documents allegedly ignored by the Board in reaching its decision, and that there was nothing preventing completion of the procurement within the timelines directed by the Board. It asserts that the application was intended only to delay the procurement process and that section 173 of the Act fully empowered the Board to issue all the orders contained in its decision.
The Applicants’ Supplementary Affidavit
40. In response to the 1 st Respondent’s replying affidavit the Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 19 th November 2025 by Jane Ndinya.
41. The Applicants in the supplementary affidavit contend that the 1 st Respondent’s findings in paragraph 142 were made in excess of its jurisdiction as at the time of evaluation, the 2 nd Respondent had an ongoing contract with the 2 nd Applicant and that the show-cause letter dated 14 th July 2025 arose purely within the sphere of contract management.
42. They also contend that by interrogating the response to that show-cause letter, concluding that the 2 nd Respondent was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, and relying on correspondence exchanged, the 1 st Respondent departed from the procurement process and improperly delved into contract management arising from a previous procurement, thereby acting outside its jurisdiction under section 28 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, which is limited to tendering and disposal disputes.
43. The Applicants further maintain that the contractual issues underpinning the show-cause letter are the subject of Milimani High Court Commercial Cases Nos. E608 of 2025 and E632 of 2025 , whose pleadings were produced before the 1 st Respondent, and that the Board’s determination on whether the 2 nd Respondent was afforded a hearing was therefore sub judice . That in their view, the 1 st Respondent acted without jurisdiction by pronouncing itself on matters directly in issue before the High Court.
44. The Applicants contend that the 1 st Respondent fundamentally erred in law by holding that the Evaluation Committee was required to accord the 2 nd Respondent a fair hearing on matters arising from the show-cause letter of 14 th July 2025, thereby conflating tender evaluation with contract management and imposing obligations outside the Committee’s statutory mandate under the Public Procurement Asset Disposal Act.
45. They argue that the Evaluation Committee was lawfully constituted under Section 46 to include representatives of the user department, whose roles under Regulations 30(b) and 34 include due diligence, contract knowledge, and disclosure of material information relating to prior engagements, and that no separate “paper trail” between the 1 st Applicant and the Committee was legally required.
46. The Applicants further submit that Regulation 30(d) expressly prohibited the Evaluation Committee from engaging in direct communication with tenderers during due diligence, while Sections 67(1)(c) and 83(2) barred disclosure of confidential evaluation material, such that any hearing or response to the 2 nd Respondent would have been unlawful and would have amounted to impermissible assumption of contract-management functions
47. They contend that the 1 st Respondent’s findings on communication and impartiality were internally contradictory, given that it condemned contact with the 2 nd Respondent while simultaneously faulting the Committee for not engaging it, and that the limited email trail concerned remission of a show-cause letter in the context of contract management, not evaluation.
48. The Applicants also assert that the 1 st Respondent acted unreasonably and without objectivity by shifting positions on whether confidential documents were availed, making adverse findings despite acknowledging receipt of the documents through affidavit evidence, failing to consider the contents of material correspondence dated 25 th July and 13 th August 2025 involving the Attorney General, misapprehending Sections 64 and 83(2) of the PPADA, and impermissibly importing additional requirements not grounded in statute.
49. They further argue that the 1 st Respondent misapplied the decision in Republic v PPARB, Rhombus Construction Co. Ltd ex parte KPA (2021), which was distinguishable as it involved adverse information from a third party, whereas in the present case the material information lay firsthand within the user department represented in the Evaluation Committee.
50. They also contend that by ignoring the gravity of documented contractual breaches implicating public safety and consumer protection, and by issuing unenforceable directions under Section 173 without appreciating that the process was a pre-qualification incapable of yielding contracts within the statutory timeline, the 1 st Respondent acted irrationally, unreasonably, and in breach of its quasi-judicial mandate.
Submissions
51. Parties filed written submissions to canvass the originating Motion
The Applicants’ Submissions
52. The Applicants filed written submissions dated 20 th November 2025.
53. It is submitted that Section 28 of PPADA spells out the jurisdiction of the 1 st Respondent which include reviewing , hearing and determining tendering and asset disposal disputes, and performing any other function conferred to the Review Board by the Act, Regulations or any other written law. The Applicants reiterate that the 1 st Respondent’s findings in paragraph 142 were made in excess of its jurisdiction.
54. The rely on the case of Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Attorney General & 5 others (Petition 16 of 2020) [2022] KESC 62 (KLR) , where the Supreme Court is said to have reaffirmed that jurisdiction is the cornerstone of any judicial or quasi-judicial process.
55. They further submit that the 1 st Respondent acted out of its jurisdiction for addressing itself on matters sub-judice . They rely on the case of Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 16 others (Interested Parties) [2020] KESC 54 (KLR) where the court is said to have dismissed a reference for being sub-judice.
56. The Applicant’s submit that the pronunciation by the 1 st Respondent that the 2 nd Respondent was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the show cause letter is itself sub-judice as the same matter is directly in issue before the High Court in Milimani High Court Commercial Cases No. E608 of 2025 and E632 of 2025. That, consequently by pronouncing itself on the matter, the 1 st Respondent acted out of jurisdiction on account of the matter being sub-judice.
57. It is the Applicants’ submission that the Decision of the 1 st Respondent constitutes material errors of law and reliance is placed in the case of Republic v Public Procurement Review Board; Leeds Equipment & systems Limited (Interested Party); Ex Parte Kenya Veterinary vaccines Production Institute [2018] eKLR , where the court is said to have held a public body commits an error of law warranting judicial intervention where, in the process of making its decision, it misinterprets or misapplies the law, breaches fundamental rights, relies on irrelevant or no evidence, fails to consider relevant matters or follow prescribed procedure, or otherwise acts ultra vires in a manner that materially affects the decision.
58. The Applicants submit that there is no prescription in law on how documents that are already in the personal knowledge of members of Evaluation Committee ought to be provided to the members for consideration, and to this extent, that the 1 st Respondent misapprehended the requirements of Section 64 of PPADA.
59. The Decision of the 1 st Respondent it is submitted constitutes legal unreasonableness and the Applicants rely on the case of Minet Kenya Insurance Brokers Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others; Liaison Healthcare Limited (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 6478 (KLR) where the court is said to have set out the parameters defining legal unreasonableness as specific errors of relevancy or purpose; reasoning illogically or irrationally; reaching a decision which lacks an evident and intelligible justification such that an inference of unreasonableness can be drawn, even where a particular error in reasoning cannot be identified; or giving disproportionate or excessive weight in the sense of more than was reasonably necessary to some factors and insufficient weight to others. They also rely on the Minet case for the role of the Review Board
60. They submit that where Section 83(2) of PPADA is silent on the manner of obtaining confidential references, it is not the mandate of the 1 st Respondent to legislate, rewrite or infuse additional meanings or impose additional requirements into the law. That by dictating that there needed to be communication between the Evaluation Committee and the 1 st Applicant, the 1 st Respondent imposed conditions into Section 83(2) of PPDA.
61. The Applicants’ submission is further that the 1 st Respondent’s order that they conclude the procurement process within 30 days and award contracts was irrational and unreasonable and to support this position reliance is placed on the case of Rahab Wanjiru Njuguna v Inspector General of Police & another [2013] eKLR where the court is said to have held that where the authority’s decision displays gross unreasonableness the Court will interfere even if there is no illegality or procedural impropriety.
62. They submit that the 1 st Respondent was irrational in ordering the Applicants to conclude the procurement process in 30 days and award contracts. That the 1 st Respondent’s powers under Se
[...truncated]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW MISC.APPLICATION NO. E142 OF 2025
REPUBLIC………………………….…………..…..………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 INTERESTED 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
JUDGMENT
1. For determination is the Originating Motion dated 3 rd November 2025 and filed on 5 th November 2025, supported by the affidavit sworn by Jane Ndinya on 3rd November 2025. The applicants who are the Accounting Officer and the Procuring entity, Kenya Bureau of Standards respectively. They seek the following orders:
a. Spent.
b. spent
c. That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the 1 st Respondent made on 27 th October, 2025 in Public Procurement Administrative Review Board Application No. 98 of 2025 World Standardization, Certification & Testing Group (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd VS The Accounting Officer, Kenya Bureau of Standards and Kenya Bureau of Standards in its entirety and all consequential actions arising from the said Decision.
d. That Costs and further incidentals of this Application be provided for.
2. The Applicant’s case is that the 2 nd Respondent submitted its bid in respect of the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant’s Tender No. KEBS/PRE-Q/T006/2025/2028 – Pre-Qualifications for Provision of Pre-Export Verification of Conformity (PVOC) to Standards Services for the Year 2025–2028.
3. That upon evaluation of the mandatory and technical requirements of the Tender, the 2 nd Respondent emerged successful for pre-qualification subject to conduct of a due diligence exercise.
4. The Applicant states that the duly appointed Evaluation Committee conducted a due diligence exercise and submitted a report recommending disqualification of the 2 nd Respondent on account of material information arising from the performance of a previous contract with the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant.
5. It is urged that by a letter dated 23 rd September 2025, the 2 nd Respondent was informed that it had not been prequalified for reasons that despite having met the minimum requirements for prequalification during the due diligence exercise, it was noted that the Applicant had on several occasions breached the ongoing contract with the 2 nd Respondent. This according to the Applicants is in line with Section 83(2) of the Public procurement and Asset Disposal Act, Cap 412C of the Laws of Kenya (PPADA).
6. The 2 nd Respondent is said to have proceeded to file a Request for Review dated 6 th October, 2025 in Public Procurement Administrative Review Board Application No. 98 of 2025 World Standardization, Certification & Testing Group (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd vs. The Accounting Officer, Kenya Bureau of Standards and Kenya Bureau of Standards. In its decision on 27 th October, 2025 the 1 st Respondent is said to have nullified and set aside the Letter of Notification of Intention to Award dated 23 rd September 2025 in respect of Tender No. KEBS/PRE-Q/T006/2025/2028 and expunged, as null and void, the portions of the due diligence report of 7 th September 2025 and the professional opinion of 22 nd September 2025 relating to the 2 nd Respondent’s disqualification.
7. It is urged that it also directed the 1 st Ex parte Applicant to re-convene the Evaluation Committee and conduct a fresh due diligence exercise on the Applicant in strict compliance with the tender documents, the law, the Constitution, and the Board’s findings within twenty-one (21) days. The Board is said to have further ordered the 1 st Ex parte Applicant to conclude the procurement process, including issuing awards to all successful bidders, within thirty (30) days from the date of the Board’s decision.
8. It is the Ex parte Applicants’ case that at paragraphs 141 and 142 of it’s Decision, the 1 st Respondent acted outside its jurisdiction as provided under Section 28 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act by pronouncing itself over the show cause letter for alleged breaches of the contract dated 14 th July, 2025 issued by the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant in a contract stemming from a previous procurement proceeding and which issue is the subject of judicial proceedings in Milimani High Court Commercial Cases No. E632 of 2025 and E608 World Standardization, Certification & Testing Group (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd VS Kenya Bureau of Standards.
9. That further, the 1 st Respondent’s Decision constitutes a material error of law for holding that the Evaluation Committee was mandated to accord the 2 nd Respondent an opportunity to respond to the contents of confidential references contrary to Regulation 30(d) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Regulations, 2020 and Sections 67(1)(c) and 83(2) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, cap 412 of the Laws of Kenya.
10. That the averments of paragraph 13 of the Replying Affidavit sworn by Philemon Kiprop materially depart from the 1 st Respondent’s Decision of 27 th October, 2025 wherein in paragraph 146 of the Decision, the 1 st Respondent categorically stated that “we examined all the confidential documents submitted to the Board and observed that the letters dated 14 th July, 2025 and 25 th July, 2025, which were presented to the Evaluation Committee as evidence of alleged breaches by the Applicant, were not included among the Confidential Documents availed to the Board. Vide letter advanced via email dated 16 th October 2025, the Board through the Board Secretary sought for the aforementioned letters as guided under Section 67(3)(e) of the Act but the same have not been availed to date”.
11. The Applicants state that for avoidance of doubt, the letter dated 16 th October, 2025 presented the request as follows: “Upon review of the Due Diligence Report signed on 7 th September, 2025, the Review Board notes that Evaluation Committee at page 5 of 38 of the said report makes reference to letters referenced KEBS/OP/68/VOL1(20) dated 14 th July, 2025 and KEBS/LEG1/101/VOL1 dated 25 th July, 2025 which were not submitted as part of the confidential documents. The purpose of this letter is to request that you urgently submit the aforementioned referenced letters…”.
12. According to the Applicants by holding that the Evaluation Committee failed to accord the 2 nd Respondent a fair hearing, the 1 st Respondent in paragraphs 141 and 142 misconstrued the mandate of the Evaluation Committee in the context of Section 83(2) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, Cap 412C. The Evaluation Committee is mandated to make its own decision over any confidential references obtained and there is no requirement to reveal the contents of such information to the bidders, subject of evaluation.
13. The 1 st Respondent’s Decision it is urged constitutes a material error of law for requiring the Evaluation Committee to accord the 2 nd Respondent a hearing over allegations of contract breaches. The Applicants state that the mandate of the Evaluation Committee under Section 83(2) did not extend to a merit review over actions and decisions made in the context of a contractual relationship between the 2 nd Respondent and the 2 nd Ex Parte Applicant.
14. They state that the finding by the 1 st Respondent, at paragraph 146 of its Decision, that they failed to provide certain documents in the confidential bundle is unsettling. This request for confidential documents it is urged was sent on 16 th October, 2025 at 12.38pm to the Ex parte Applicants’ counsel’s email address gachaguat@kebs.org and copied to the departmental email Procurement@kebs.org.
15. That counsel responded to the said email on the same day, 16 th October, 2025 at 12.48pm attaching the two requested letters being KEBS/OP/68/VOL1(20) dated 14 th July, 2025 and KEBS/LEG1/101/VOL1 dated 25 th July, 2025 and secondary to the advance copies sent on email, the Applicants’ procurement officer delivered physical copies to the 1 st Respondent on 21 st October, 2025.
16. It is urged that the Decision by the 1 st Respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations including Confidential Documents presented on behalf of the Applicants to the 1 st Respondent by email of 16 th October, 2025 thereby denying them an opportunity to state their case leading to a flawed Decision.
17. The Applicants state that the ecision of the 1 st Respondent is irrational and unreasonable for directing that the procurement proceedings be concluded within 30 days and an award of contract be made whereas as the subject proceedings concern a pre-qualification, a secondary procurement process must be conducted to enable award of contract which process cannot be possibly completed in 30 days.
18. They also urge that the Decision of the 1 st Respondent is influenced by irrelevant considerations as the Orders relating to conclusion of the procurement process in relation to other successful bidders has no direct correlation to the matters in issue in the Request for Review before the 1 st Respondent.
The 1 st Respondent’s Replying Affidavit
19. In response the 1 st Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by Mr. Philemon Kiprop who introduces himself as the Secretary of the 1 st Respondent on 11 th November 2025. Mr Kiprop deposes that on 6 th October 2025, the 2 nd Respondent filed Request for Review No. 98 of 2025 challenging its non-prequalification under Pre-qualification Reference No. KEBS/PRE-Q/T006/2025/2028 for PVOC services for 2025–2028, seeking annulment of the disqualification decision contained in the letter dated 23 rd September 2025, directions for its pre-qualification and directions for invitation to tender for it together with other pre-qualified bidders, costs arising from, and incidental to, the Request for Review, and any other appropriate relief
20. That upon hearing the matter, the 1 st Respondent exercised its statutory mandate under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and, on 27 th October 2025, issued final orders nullifying the letter of notification dated 23 rd September 2025, expunging from the due diligence report of 7 th September 2025 and the subsequent professional opinion of 22 nd September 2025 all contents relating to the reasons for the Applicant’s disqualification, directing a fresh due diligence exercise strictly in accordance with the law and the tender document to be conducted within twenty-one days, directing conclusion of the procurement process including award within thirty days, clarifying that the expunging and fresh due diligence orders applied only to the Applicant’s bid for Zone 1 (China), and ordering each party to bear its own costs.
21. The 1 st Respondent maintains that its decision was neither irrational nor ultra vires, having been reached after considering all pleadings, documents, submissions, authorities, and confidential material submitted under section 67(3)(e) of the Act, and in line with prior High Court decisions, and it identified for determination the issues of jurisdiction, the lawfulness of the due diligence exercise, and the appropriate reliefs.
22. On jurisdiction, the 1 st Respondent states that it found that the Request for Review was filed within the fourteen-day statutory period under section 167(1) of the Act, the notification letter having been received on 23 rd September 2025 and the Request filed on 6 th October 2025, and further held that the doctrine of sub judice did not apply despite the existence of Nairobi High Court Commercial Cases Nos. E608 of 2025 and E632 of 2025, as those matters concerned alleged contractual breaches while the Request for Review related to the propriety of the due diligence process, thereby leaving its jurisdiction intact.
23. Addressing the conduct of due diligence, the 1 st Respondent states that it reviewed two due diligence reports dated 16 th August 2025 and 7 th September 2025, noting that the first recommended the 2 nd Respondent for prequalification while the second introduced adverse findings based on alleged breaches arising from a separate contract, and it therefore focused on the latter report pursuant to its mandate under section 173 of the Act.
24. That upon interrogating the process leading to the second report, the 1 st Respondent found that the 2 nd Respondent had been disqualified without being afforded an opportunity to be heard on the adverse allegations, contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act, and binding precedent, including Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Rhombus Construction Company Limited (Interested Party) Ex parte Kenya Ports Authority & Another [2021] KEHC 8109 (KLR) where the court is said to have underscored the obligation of administrative bodies to observe the right to fair administrative action.
25. The 1 st Respondent’s position is that its finding of a lack of due process by the Evaluation Committee was based on its review of the confidential record, which revealed that key correspondences relied on to disqualify the 2 nd Respondent were not availed, and that although the Applicants availed the letters dated 14 th and 25 th July 2025 were produced, there was no documented paper trail demonstrating how the Evaluation Committee obtained them.
26. That as an independent unit, the Evaluation Committee ought to have formally requested for such documents from the Accounting Officer and received formal written responses, and the absence of this chain of communication contravened section 64 of the Act, undermined transparency and accountability, impeded verification of the second due diligence process, and raised serious concerns about the integrity of its findings.
27. The 1 st Respondent further notes that there was no documentation showing how information on the alleged contractual breaches by the 2 nd Respondent was obtained, as there was neither evidence of a formal request by the Evaluation Committee nor any correspondence forwarding such information, thereby casting doubt on the independence, transparency, and procedural integrity of the second due diligence exercise.
28. This concern is said to have been reinforced by the fact that an earlier due diligence report dated 16 th August 2025 had found the 2 nd Respondent qualified for prequalification, while the subsequent report of 7 th September 2025, which introduced adverse findings, was procedurally flawed and lacked transparency, justifying the conclusions reached in Request for Review No. 98 of 2025.
29. Accordingly, the 1 st Respondent maintains that it properly found the second due diligence exercise to be tainted by procedural irregularities and breaches of fairness, impartiality, and accountability, and lawfully expunged the impugned portions of the due diligence report and professional opinion, nullifying the Letter of Notification to Award. It emphasizes that it acted strictly within its jurisdiction under sections 28 and 173 of the Act, did not determine any contractual disputes, and referred to the show-cause letter of 14 th July 2025 only to assess whether it was lawfully and fairly used in the evaluation process, without encroaching on matters before other courts.
30. The 1 st Respondent further states that the Evaluation Committee was bound by Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and that its functions under section 83(2) of the Act do not exclude adherence to natural justice, rather, they require fairness and reasonableness where a bidder faces disqualification. It clarifies that it did not require unlawful disclosure of confidential information, but merely held that adverse material could not be relied upon without procedural fairness, thereby harmonizing the Act with constitutional fair hearing principles.
31. The 1 st Respondent further states that the Evaluation Committee was bound by Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and that its functions under section 83(2) of the Act do not exclude adherence to natural justice, rather, they require fairness and reasonableness where a bidder faces disqualification. It clarifies that before relying on adverse material to a bidder's detriment, the Evaluation Committee had to ensure procedural fairness. It is urged that the 1 st Respondent's decision therefore harmonized Section 83(2) of the Act with Article 47 of the Constitution and the principle of fair hearing recognized by the courts.
32. Finally, the 1 st Respondent avers that its decision considered all relevant material, was reasoned and evidence-based, and that the timelines it directed were lawful, efficient, and non-prejudicial and pursuant to section 173(b) and (c). It maintains that its orders neither exceeded jurisdiction nor caused prejudice, and that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or unfairness in the decision-making process.
The 2 nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit
33. The 2 nd Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 10 th October 2025 by Harold Amaya Munala. He deposes that the present motion is fatally defective for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 175 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
34. That in their regret letter dated 23 rd September 2025 the Applicants’ sole reason for disqualifying it was the 2 nd Respondent had on several occasions breached its contract with the 2 nd Applicant. It is urged that the contract that was advertised was an ongoing contract between the parties. However, that the Applicants maliciously and deliberately failed to disclose material facts to it with respect to the alleged breaches.
35. It is the 2 nd Respondents case that the basis of the alleged breaches was inter alia the Applicants’ show cause letter dated 14 th July 2025 addressed to it, through which the 2 nd Respondent purported to raise concerns regarding the alleged distribution of substandard sockets in the market.
36. In the said letter, the Applicants are said to have required the 2 nd Respondent to furnish a written explanation within seven (7) days of its issuance. However, that the letter was dispatched and served on the 2 nd Respondent via email only on 23 rd July 2025, which was two (2) days after the lapse of the seven (7) days within which the 2 nd Respondent was required to respond.
37. That the belated transmission of the notice clearly demonstrated the Applicants’ malice and premeditated action, and as such the Board could not have arrived at a just decision without looking at the circumstances surrounding the 2 nd Respondent’s disqualification in which the letter of 14 th July 2025 was key.
38. The 2 nd Respondent’s case is that the Board did not breach section 28 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, as the provision expressly sets out the Board’s powers and functions, which were properly exercised. It contends that confidentiality does not shield the Evaluation Committee from scrutiny and that the Board was entitled to investigate whether the Committee’s actions met the required standards of openness, objectivity, fairness, and transparency.
39. The 2 nd Respondent further maintains that the Applicants failed to identify any specific documents allegedly ignored by the Board in reaching its decision, and that there was nothing preventing completion of the procurement within the timelines directed by the Board. It asserts that the application was intended only to delay the procurement process and that section 173 of the Act fully empowered the Board to issue all the orders contained in its decision.
The Applicants’ Supplementary Affidavit
40. In response to the 1 st Respondent’s replying affidavit the Applicants filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 19 th November 2025 by Jane Ndinya.
41. The Applicants in the supplementary affidavit contend that the 1 st Respondent’s findings in paragraph 142 were made in excess of its jurisdiction as at the time of evaluation, the 2 nd Respondent had an ongoing contract with the 2 nd Applicant and that the show-cause letter dated 14 th July 2025 arose purely within the sphere of contract management.
42. They also contend that by interrogating the response to that show-cause letter, concluding that the 2 nd Respondent was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, and relying on correspondence exchanged, the 1 st Respondent departed from the procurement process and improperly delved into contract management arising from a previous procurement, thereby acting outside its jurisdiction under section 28 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, which is limited to tendering and disposal disputes.
43. The Applicants further maintain that the contractual issues underpinning the show-cause letter are the subject of Milimani High Court Commercial Cases Nos. E608 of 2025 and E632 of 2025 , whose pleadings were produced before the 1 st Respondent, and that the Board’s determination on whether the 2 nd Respondent was afforded a hearing was therefore sub judice . That in their view, the 1 st Respondent acted without jurisdiction by pronouncing itself on matters directly in issue before the High Court.
44. The Applicants contend that the 1 st Respondent fundamentally erred in law by holding that the Evaluation Committee was required to accord the 2 nd Respondent a fair hearing on matters arising from the show-cause letter of 14 th July 2025, thereby conflating tender evaluation with contract management and imposing obligations outside the Committee’s statutory mandate under the Public Procurement Asset Disposal Act.
45. They argue that the Evaluation Committee was lawfully constituted under Section 46 to include representatives of the user department, whose roles under Regulations 30(b) and 34 include due diligence, contract knowledge, and disclosure of material information relating to prior engagements, and that no separate “paper trail” between the 1 st Applicant and the Committee was legally required.
46. The Applicants further submit that Regulation 30(d) expressly prohibited the Evaluation Committee from engaging in direct communication with tenderers during due diligence, while Sections 67(1)(c) and 83(2) barred disclosure of confidential evaluation material, such that any hearing or response to the 2 nd Respondent would have been unlawful and would have amounted to impermissible assumption of contract-management functions
47. They contend that the 1 st Respondent’s findings on communication and impartiality were internally contradictory, given that it condemned contact with the 2 nd Respondent while simultaneously faulting the Committee for not engaging it, and that the limited email trail concerned remission of a show-cause letter in the context of contract management, not evaluation.
48. The Applicants also assert that the 1 st Respondent acted unreasonably and without objectivity by shifting positions on whether confidential documents were availed, making adverse findings despite acknowledging receipt of the documents through affidavit evidence, failing to consider the contents of material correspondence dated 25 th July and 13 th August 2025 involving the Attorney General, misapprehending Sections 64 and 83(2) of the PPADA, and impermissibly importing additional requirements not grounded in statute.
49. They further argue that the 1 st Respondent misapplied the decision in Republic v PPARB, Rhombus Construction Co. Ltd ex parte KPA (2021), which was distinguishable as it involved adverse information from a third party, whereas in the present case the material information lay firsthand within the user department represented in the Evaluation Committee.
50. They also contend that by ignoring the gravity of documented contractual breaches implicating public safety and consumer protection, and by issuing unenforceable directions under Section 173 without appreciating that the process was a pre-qualification incapable of yielding contracts within the statutory timeline, the 1 st Respondent acted irrationally, unreasonably, and in breach of its quasi-judicial mandate.
Submissions
51. Parties filed written submissions to canvass the originating Motion
The Applicants’ Submissions
52. The Applicants filed written submissions dated 20 th November 2025.
53. It is submitted that Section 28 of PPADA spells out the jurisdiction of the 1 st Respondent which include reviewing , hearing and determining tendering and asset disposal disputes, and performing any other function conferred to the Review Board by the Act, Regulations or any other written law. The Applicants reiterate that the 1 st Respondent’s findings in paragraph 142 were made in excess of its jurisdiction.
54. The rely on the case of Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Attorney General & 5 others (Petition 16 of 2020) [2022] KESC 62 (KLR) , where the Supreme Court is said to have reaffirmed that jurisdiction is the cornerstone of any judicial or quasi-judicial process.
55. They further submit that the 1 st Respondent acted out of its jurisdiction for addressing itself on matters sub-judice . They rely on the case of Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 16 others (Interested Parties) [2020] KESC 54 (KLR) where the court is said to have dismissed a reference for being sub-judice.
56. The Applicant’s submit that the pronunciation by the 1 st Respondent that the 2 nd Respondent was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the show cause letter is itself sub-judice as the same matter is directly in issue before the High Court in Milimani High Court Commercial Cases No. E608 of 2025 and E632 of 2025. That, consequently by pronouncing itself on the matter, the 1 st Respondent acted out of jurisdiction on account of the matter being sub-judice.
57. It is the Applicants’ submission that the Decision of the 1 st Respondent constitutes material errors of law and reliance is placed in the case of Republic v Public Procurement Review Board; Leeds Equipment & systems Limited (Interested Party); Ex Parte Kenya Veterinary vaccines Production Institute [2018] eKLR , where the court is said to have held a public body commits an error of law warranting judicial intervention where, in the process of making its decision, it misinterprets or misapplies the law, breaches fundamental rights, relies on irrelevant or no evidence, fails to consider relevant matters or follow prescribed procedure, or otherwise acts ultra vires in a manner that materially affects the decision.
58. The Applicants submit that there is no prescription in law on how documents that are already in the personal knowledge of members of Evaluation Committee ought to be provided to the members for consideration, and to this extent, that the 1 st Respondent misapprehended the requirements of Section 64 of PPADA.
59. The Decision of the 1 st Respondent it is submitted constitutes legal unreasonableness and the Applicants rely on the case of Minet Kenya Insurance Brokers Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others; Liaison Healthcare Limited (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 6478 (KLR) where the court is said to have set out the parameters defining legal unreasonableness as specific errors of relevancy or purpose; reasoning illogically or irrationally; reaching a decision which lacks an evident and intelligible justification such that an inference of unreasonableness can be drawn, even where a particular error in reasoning cannot be identified; or giving disproportionate or excessive weight in the sense of more than was reasonably necessary to some factors and insufficient weight to others. They also rely on the Minet case for the role of the Review Board
60. They submit that where Section 83(2) of PPADA is silent on the manner of obtaining confidential references, it is not the mandate of the 1 st Respondent to legislate, rewrite or infuse additional meanings or impose additional requirements into the law. That by dictating that there needed to be communication between the Evaluation Committee and the 1 st Applicant, the 1 st Respondent imposed conditions into Section 83(2) of PPDA.
61. The Applicants’ submission is further that the 1 st Respondent’s order that they conclude the procurement process within 30 days and award contracts was irrational and unreasonable and to support this position reliance is placed on the case of Rahab Wanjiru Njuguna v Inspector General of Police & another [2013] eKLR where the court is said to have held that where the authority’s decision displays gross unreasonableness the Court will interfere even if there is no illegality or procedural impropriety.
62. They submit that the 1 st Respondent was irrational in ordering the Applicants to conclude the procurement process in 30 days and award contracts. That the 1 st Respondent’s powers under Se
[...truncated]