Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateStruck OutCivil Suit No E949 of 2025· [2026] KEMC 2 (KLR)

Asumani v Geothermal Development Compny Limited; Gitau t/a Astorion Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Civil Suit E949 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 2 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court / Magistrates' Court, Nakuru
22 January 2026
ANAloyce Peter Ndege
1,968 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A bidder who skips the 14-day procurement review process at the Review Board cannot take that dispute to court—his suit was struck out entirely.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Geothermal Development Company Limited raised a preliminary objection dated 27/10/2025 challenging the court's jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's suit and Notice of Motion dated 08/10/2025, which sought injunctive and compelling orders to restrain the resale of used oil (Lot No. 3) and the refund of the plaintiff's bid price of Kshs. 250,000 following the cancellation of an auction sale under Tender No. GDC/SC/AUC/079/2024-2025. The defendant argued that the dispute arose from a public asset disposal process governed by the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, whose section 167(1) requires an aggrieved tenderer to seek administrative review before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board within fourteen days, and that section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 bars judicial intervention before exhaustion of internal mechanisms. Only the defendant filed submissions. The court held that the Review Board enjoys original and exclusive jurisdiction over procurement disputes at first instance; judicial review under section 175(1) of the PPADA lies only against a Review Board decision. Since the plaintiff never sought review within the statutory window, he could not bypass the Board and invoke the court's jurisdiction; further, the procurement timeline had run its course and the matter was overtaken by events. Applying the doctrine of exhaustion from Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume, the court upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the suit and Notice of Motion as incompetent for want of jurisdiction, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and closed the file.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a public procurement/asset disposal process where the plaintiff did not exhaust the administrative review mechanism under section 167 of the PPADA

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; the suit and Notice of Motion are incompetent and struck out

Reasoning

Section 167(1) of the PPADA requires an aggrieved candidate or tenderer to seek administrative review before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board within fourteen days of notification of award or the alleged breach. The Review Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction over procurement disputes at first instance. Judicial review under section 175(1) lies only against a decision of the Review Board. The plaintiff never sought review, so he cannot bypass the Board and invoke the court's jurisdiction. Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act reinforces the exhaustion requirement.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The Public Procurement Administrative Review Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear procurement disputes at first instance, and a bidder who fails to seek review under section 167 of the PPADA within the statutory 14-day window cannot bypass the Board by filing suit in court
  • Where there is a clear procedure for redress prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure must be strictly followed (doctrine of exhaustion)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection filed on 27/10/2025 is upheld as merited
  2. 2.The Suit and Notice of Motion dated 08/10/2025 are struck out as incompetent for want of jurisdiction
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the proceedings
  4. 4.The file is closed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Actsection 167(1)
  • Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Actsection 175(1)
  • Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Actsection 174
  • Fair Administrative Action Actsection 9(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume
    [1992] KLR 21
  • Republic v Kenya Wildlife Service; Ahmed (Ex Parte)
    [2025] KEHC 5837 (KLR)
  • Republic v Kenya Ports Authority & Another ex parte Seastorm Kenya Limited
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to determine a preliminary objection on its own jurisdiction; Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, sections 167(1) and 175(1); Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, section 9(2)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Asumani v Geothermal Development Compny Limited; Gitau t/a Astorion Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Civil Suit E949 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 2 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Suit No E949 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/2/eng@2026-01-22

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