AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Appeal No. E146 of 2026
The Gardens & Wedding Centre Ltd v The Accounting Officer, County Government of Nakuru, Department of Health Services & 3 Others
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The Court of Appeal at Nakuru (Mativo, Kairaria & Ahmed Issack, JJ.A.) allowed an appeal against a ruling of Sergon, J. delivered on 13th August 2026 in HCJR Misc. Appl. No. E003 of 2026. The dispute concerned the interpretation of section 175 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. Before the High Court, the appellant had raised a preliminary objection arguing that, because more than 45 days had elapsed since the filing of the 1st and 2nd respondents' judicial review application dated 28th May 2026, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to determine it, section 175(3) requiring the High Court to determine judicial review applications within 45 days. Sergon, J. dismissed that preliminary objection, and the appellant appealed. It was common ground that the 45-day statutory period had been exceeded by the time the preliminary objection was filed and dismissed. The Court of Appeal, applying the clear language of section 175(1) read with section 175(5) - under which failure by the High Court or Court of Appeal to decide within the prescribed timelines renders the review board's decision final and binding - held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the judicial review application beyond the 45-day period. The court set aside the ruling of 13th August 2026, substituted an order that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, awarded the costs of the appeal against the 1st and 2nd respondents, and directed that detailed reasons would follow under rule 34(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The judgment binds subordinate courts on the mandatory nature of the section 175 timelines.
Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine judicial review proceedings beyond the 45-day period prescribed by section 175(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to determine a judicial review application after expiry of the 45-day period in section 175(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act
Holding
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine such an application beyond the 45-day statutory period; the consequence under section 175(5) is that the review board's decision becomes final and binding.
Reasoning
The court read the clear language of section 175(1) together with section 175(5), which expressly provides the consequence of the court failing to decide within the prescribed timelines. Since it was undisputed that the 45 days had elapsed when the preliminary objection was argued, the statutory bar applied and the High Court's contrary ruling could not stand.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- Where the High Court fails to determine a judicial review application within the 45 days prescribed by section 175(3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, it loses jurisdiction to determine the application thereafter.
- Under section 175(5) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, failure by the High Court or Court of Appeal to decide within the prescribed timelines renders the decision of the review board final and binding.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling and order delivered by Sergon, J. on 13th August 2026 in Miscellaneous Application No. E003 of 2026 dismissing the appellant's preliminary objection is set aside
- 2.Substituted order that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1st and 2nd respondents' judicial review application dated 28th May 2026 beyond the 45 days prescribed by the Act
- 3.The 1st and 2nd respondents shall bear the cost of this appeal
- 4.Detailed reasons to be communicated pursuant to rule 34(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- HCJR Misc. Appl. No. E003 of 2026
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal/ruling from the High Court; detailed reasons to follow under rule 34(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The appeal revolves around the interpretation of section 175 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act.
if either the High Court or the Court of Appeal fails to make a decision within the prescribed timelines, under section (3) or (4), the decision of the review board shall be final and binding.
the ruling and order delivered by Sergon, J. on 13th August 2026 in Miscellaneous Application No. E003 of 2026 dismissing the appellant’s preliminary objection is set aside.
the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1 st and 2nd respondents’ judicial review application dated 28 th May 2026 beyond the 45 days prescribed by the Act.
The 1st and 2nd respondents shall bear the cost of this appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#minor
Judgment states detailed reasons will follow under rule 34(1); this is only a short ex tempore decision.
minor
Pagination anomalies ('Page 5 of 3') suggest an imperfect official record.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "The Gardens & Wedding Centre Ltd v The Accounting Officer, County Government of Nakuru, Department of Health Services & 3 Others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal No. E146 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1999/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.