Tropical Technology Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another
The bottom line
#Specialized administrative decisions are generally protected from court interference unless clear illegality or irrationality is proven.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Irrelevant and relevant considerations as grounds of review
The Board did not consider irrelevant matters; the two tenders were for different goods (digitized vs non-digitized number plates) and the applicant's contract was unaffected
The court reviewed the doctrine of mandatory and permissible considerations, holding that a decision is invalidated only where obligatory considerations are ignored. On the facts, the Board's finding that the tenders differed was undisputed, and the applicant's existing contract remained valid and running, so no different tribunal could have reached a different conclusion.
Wednesbury unreasonableness
The decision was not unreasonable or irrational; it fell within the range of permissible outcomes
Applying the test that a decision must be objectively so devoid of plausible justification that no reasonable body could have reached it, the court found nothing to show that a reasonable tribunal faced with the same facts and law would have arrived at a different conclusion. The court's role is strictly supervisory.
Deference to specialized tribunals
The Review Board, being better equipped to handle procurement disputes, should not be lightly interfered with
The court emphasized that the Board is a specialized statutory tribunal whose administrative review function is akin to an appeal, and that a judicial review court ought to be slow to substitute its own decision merely because it prefers a different permissible option.
Legal principles established
#- Taking into account irrelevant considerations or disregarding relevant ones is a manifestation of irrationality and a reviewable error, provided the outcome might have differed
- Once a decision-maker takes relevant considerations into account, the weight given to them is a matter for the decision-maker, not the court
- The Review Board's decisions within its jurisdiction should not be lightly interfered with by the High Court
- Judicial intervention is limited to illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the applicant's application dated 26th April 2019
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (order of certiorari and prohibition)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tropical Technology Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & another", Case Analysis (2020). Judicial Review application dated 26th April 2019 (Request for Review Number 32 of 2019, Tropical Technology Limited v Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2020/9235/eng@2020-01-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.