Space Contractors & Suppliers Investment Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 5 others

The Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act was enacted after the 2010 Constitution under Article 227(2). Interpreting section 175 to require commencement only upon filing of the substantive notice of motion would render challenges to Board decisions illusory given the strict 14-day timeline. A purposive construction achieves timely and fair disposal of procurement disputes, so the leave application marks commencement.

Section 167(1) read with regulation 203(2)(c) demarcates three stages for lodging a request for review. Where the breach is alleged before the award, the 14 days runs from the occurrence of the breach, not from notification of award. Parliament deliberately demarcated these stages to ensure complaints are resolved as they arise. The appellant's complaints about the advertisement, addenda, court ruling and alleged delay arose before the award and were within its knowledge, so the request was out of time.

Section 167(1) requires that the person seeking review claim to have suffered or risk suffering loss or damage due to breach of a duty imposed on a procuring entity. Merely contending that some awarded tenderers were unqualified is insufficient; the appellant had to plead the loss it suffered or risked. The Court endorsed James Oyondi on this threshold requirement, while noting that section 174 preserves other legal remedies against irregular tendering.

Following the Supreme Court in Praxidis Namoni Saisi, a judicial review court examines whether the decision-maker acted with lawful authority, followed fair procedures, and whether the decision is perverse, irrational or grossly disproportionate, which requires some merit analysis of uncontroverted evidence. But review does not convert the court into an appellate body; it may only quash, not substitute its own preferred view of the evidence.

The Court declined to read section 175(7) as barring costs where the Board's decision is upheld. The general rule that costs follow the event, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh Rai, applies, and departure requires good grounds. Since the learned Judge gave no reason for directing each party to bear its own costs, the cross-appeal on costs succeeded.