Webb Fontaine Group FZ – LLC v Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board & 3 others [2020] KECA 695 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that procurement review deadlines start when you receive notice of a lost bid, not when feedback discussions end.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the letter dated 30th April 2015 constituted valid notification of the unsuccessful bid under section 83 of the Act, triggering the limitation period for a request for review
The letter of 30th April 2015 was a valid communication of the unsuccessful bid; the 14-day limitation period ran from that date even as the appellant pursued a complaint and feedback within the TMEA standstill period.
Section 83 required the procuring entity to notify unsuccessful bidders of their failure. The letter of 30th April 2015 expressly stated the bid was unsuccessful and quantified scores, satisfying section 83. The invitation to seek feedback within a 14-day standstill period under TMEA policy clause 4.8.1 did not suspend the running of time; nothing prevented the appellant from requesting review while seeking clarification. The request filed on 15th June 2015 was therefore out of time, and with no provision for extension of time, the Board rightly declined jurisdiction.
Whether the Review Board acted unlawfully, irrationally or with procedural impropriety in striking out the request for review on limitation grounds
The Board committed no illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; the appellant failed to bring its judicial review application within the established threshold.
Applying the Pastoli threshold of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, the Court found the Board acted within its mandate under section 98 of the Act and Regulation 77 in determining preliminary issues first. As the request for review was time-barred and no extension was available, the Board's dismissal was lawful and could not be faulted.
Scope of judicial review and appellate interference with the High Court's discretion
Judicial review concerns the decision-making process, not the merits; the High Court correctly applied this principle and its discretion could not be disturbed.
The Court rehearsed the Municipal Council of Mombasa formulation and noted the post-2010 shift permitting limited merit review under Article 47 and section 7 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, but reaffirmed that the reviewing court may not substitute its own decision. The Judge was well aware of his remit, applied the correct principles, and considered all relevant circumstances, so no basis existed for appellate interference under the Mbogo v Shah standard.
Legal principles established
#- The right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board accrues upon unequivocal notification under section 83 of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act that one's bid was unsuccessful, and an invitation to seek feedback during a standstill period does not postpone that right.
- An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a trial court unless it misdirected itself, considered matters it ought not to have, or failed to consider matters it ought to have considered, arriving at a misguided decision.
- A reviewing court limits itself to the decision-making process and may not substitute its own decision for that of the administrator, though post-2010 judicial review includes elements of merit review under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Misc. Civil Application No. 250 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Act over an appeal from the High Court's judicial review decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Vihiga County Public Service Board v County Assembly of Vihiga (Judicial Review)[2020] KEHC 4125 (KLR)12 Jun 2020
- Momanyi v Wahome (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6834 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6834 (KLR)9 Jun 2006
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Webb Fontaine Group FZ – LLC v Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board & 3 others [2020] KECA 695 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/695/eng@2020-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.