Ledama v Narok County Government (Civil Appeal (Application) E921 of 2024) [2025] KECA 875 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to freeze a Narok tender because a 2023-2024 financial-year tender legally cannot be awarded in 2025.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application has met the threshold for the grant of a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, namely an arguable appeal and whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the twin principles for a stay pending appeal under Rule 5(2)(b)
Although the appeal was arguable, the nugatory limb failed because the 2023-2024 financial-year tender could not lawfully be awarded in 2025, so the stay was unnecessary and inefficacious.
The court acknowledged significant constitutional questions but held that the nugatory aspect was weakened by the emerging legal context. The court's suo moto question on whether a 2023-2024 tender could be awarded in 2025 went to the substratum of the application. Counsel's concessions aligned with the court's prima facie view that awarding a time-bound tender outside its financial year would violate Sections 53 and 54 of the PPADA, rendering the feared completion of procurement speculative.
Legal principles established
#- A time-bound tender designated for a specific financial year may not lawfully be awarded after the lapse of that financial year, since awarding it outside the year would violate Section 54(1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act
- An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both twin principles - an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay - and the nugatory test depends on whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible
- In assessing nugatory-ness, the court takes account of the current factual and legal context, including supervening events that remove the threat the stay would avert
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's application dated 21st November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application shall be borne by the applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Constitutional Petition No. E512 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Stay of the procurement process in respect of Tender No. NCG/OT/31/2023-2024 pending the hearing and determination of Appeal No. E921 of 2024
The nugatory aspect failed: the tender, being tied to the 2023-2024 financial year, could not legally be awarded in 2025 under Sections 53 and 54 of the PPADA, so the threat the stay sought to avert no longer exists or is speculative
Costs
Costs of the application shall be borne by the applicant.
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.
For the foregoing reasons, the applicant's application dated 21st November 2024 is hereby dismissed.
The designation of the tender tied it to a specific year, and awarding it outside that year would likely violate Section 54(1) of the PPADA.
we find that the threat of the impugned procurement process being completed no longer exists, or at the very least, has become speculative and legally doubtful.
The critical point is not merely whether the invitations were recalled, but whether the tender for the year 2023-2024 could still be awarded in 2025.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ledama v Narok County Government (Civil Appeal (Application) E921 of 2024) [2025] KECA 875 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application No. E921 of 2024 (Rule 5(2)(b) application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/875/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.