Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Application No. 63 of 2010· [2010] KECA 501 (KLR)

Republic v. The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Ex-parte Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd.

Court of Appeal
30 July 2010
3,550 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal paused the review board proceedings and enforcement of a mandamus order, but confirmed a quashing order cannot be suspended pending appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
KENGEN, a procuring entity, sought a stay pending an intended appeal against a High Court judgment (Wendoh, J., 18 March 2010) which quashed the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board's dismissal of Zhongman's Request for Review, ordered mandamus compelling the Board to hear the request, and declared the contract between KENGEN and Shengli illegal and a nullity ab initio. The application was brought under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The Court held the application defective in two respects: Rule 5(2)(b) does not authorise a general stay, and an order of certiorari cannot be stayed pending appeal, being settable aside only in the appeal itself. However, mandamus is a positive order commanding performance of a statutory duty and its execution can be stayed. Treating the defect as minor under the overriding objective, the Court found the intended appeal arguable - particularly on the superior court's jurisdiction to nullify a contract under the Public Procurement and Disposal Act and on the effect of the 30-day limitation in Section 100(4) - and held the appeal would be rendered nugatory unless the Review Board proceedings were stayed. The Court allowed the application in part: the execution of the mandamus order was stayed and further proceedings in Request for Review No. 2 of 2010 were stayed pending the appeal. Costs were made costs in the appeal. The Court flagged four broad jurisdictional questions on procurement for determination at the hearing of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

The Court was satisfied the intended appeal raises arguable grounds, particularly on the superior court's jurisdiction to nullify the contract.

Reasoning

One proposed ground questioned the superior court's jurisdiction to declare the contract null and void when nullification had neither been sought nor was within the judicial review jurisdiction. The Court laid out the statutory basis under Sections 67, 68, 93, 94, 97 and 100 of the Act and found the grounds fit for consideration.

p. 6
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay

Holding

Unless the Review Board proceedings were stayed, the appeal would be rendered nugatory as the substratum of the appeal would not subsist.

Reasoning

The appeal questions the legality of the judicial review proceedings that nullified the contract and granted mandamus. If the Review Board proceeded to hear the Request for Review, the substratum of the appeal would disappear. The Court also noted the public interest in procurement jurisprudence being determined by the court of last resort.

p. 6
03

Whether the application was competent despite seeking a stay of certiorari and mandamus rather than stay of execution

Holding

The application was incompetent as regards certiorari but the defect as to mandamus was minor and curable under the overriding objective.

Reasoning

Rule 5(2)(b) permits only a stay of execution, an injunction, or a stay of further proceedings. Certiorari cannot be stayed; mandamus can. The Court treated the application as one for stay of execution of the mandamus order, or alternatively a stay of further proceedings resulting from it.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An order of certiorari cannot be stayed pending appeal; it can only be set aside in the appeal itself.
  • The execution of an order of mandamus can be stayed pending appeal under Rule 5(2)(b).
  • A defective application for stay may be treated as one for stay of execution under the overriding objective.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Execution of the order of mandamus granted by the superior court on 18th March, 2010 is stayed pending the determination of the intended appeal
  2. 2.Further proceedings in Request for Review No. 2 of 2010 are stayed until the determination of the appeal
  3. 3.Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 67(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 67(2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 68(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 68(2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 93(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 93(2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 93(2)(c)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 94
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 97(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 97(2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 100(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal ActSection 100(4)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal Regulations, 2006Regulation 73(2)(c)(ii)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal Regulations, 2006Regulation 77(1)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actoverriding objective
  • Law Reform ActSection 9(5)
  • Constitution of KenyaSection 60

Cases cited (3)

  • Karia Mbae vs. The Land Adjudication Officer, Chuka
    High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 257 of 1987 (unreported)

    The High Court has no jurisdiction to stay, recall, review, set aside or quash an order of certiorari once made.

  • Republic vs. Municipal Council of Mombasa & 2 Others, Exparte – Adopt – A – Light Ltd.
    Civil Application No. Nai. 15 of 2007 (unreported)

    No jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b) to stay nullification by certiorari; only execution of decree or orders can be stayed.

  • The Kenya National Examination Council and Republic – Exparte Kemunto Regina Ouru & 128 Others
    Civil Application No. Nai. 150 of 2009 (unreported)

    The Court under Rule 5(2)(b) can in effect stay the execution of an order of mandamus.

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 53 of 2010
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v. The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, Ex-parte Kenya Electricity Generating Company Ltd.", Case Analysis (2010). Civil Application No. 63 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2010/501/eng@2010-07-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.