IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU (CORAM: MATIVO, KAIRARIA & HASSAN, JJ. A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. E146 OF 2026 BETWEEN THE GARDENS & WEDDING CENTRE LTD.........APPELLANT AND THE ACCOUNTING OFFICER, COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ………1ST RESPONDENT COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ….....2ND RESPONDENT PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD.....................................3RD RESPONDENT DELKI SUPPLIES AND GENERAL SERVICES…………………………...…4TH RESPONDENT (An appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Sergon, J.) delivered on 13th August 2026 in HCJR Misc. Appl. No. E003 of 2026) *************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT We have considered the grounds of appeal, the record of appeal, the parties written submission, the cited case law and the eloquent oral highlights made before us by the parties’ advocates. The appeal revolves around the interpretation of section 175 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. The dispute before the High Court was on a preliminary objection on that Page 1 of 3
page 1 of 6
particular section, and the question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear Page 2 of 3
page 2 of 6
and determine the judicial review proceedings, pending before it beyond the 45 days period prescribed by section 175 (3) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act. The section provides as follows: “The High Court shall determine judicial review application within 45 days after such application.” There is no dispute between the parties that that the 45 days statutory period had been exceeded as at the time that the preliminary objection seeking to strike out the judicial review application was filed and dismissed by Sergon J. Considering the clear language of section 175 (1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, we are persuaded that this appeal has merit especially when viewed in the context of section 175 (5) of the Act, which provides that: “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.” That being our view of the matter, we allow the appeal with the consequence that, the ruling and order delivered by Sergon, J. on 13th August 2026 in Miscellaneous Application No. E003 of Page 3 of 3
page 3 of 6
2026 dismissing the appellant’s preliminary objection is set aside. We Page 4 of 3
page 4 of 6
hereby substitute that ruling and order with an order that; 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. Our detailed reasons for our decision shall be communicated pursuant to rule 34 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. Orders accordingly. Dated and delivered at Nakuru this 30th day of September, 2026. J. MATIVO .................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL MURUNGI B. KAIRARIA .................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL AHMED ISSACK ................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the Page 5 of 3
page 5 of 6
original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR Page 6 of 3
page 6 of 6