Precision Experts Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others (Civil Appeal E301 of 2025) [2025] KECA 976 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the strict 14-day deadline to challenge procurement review decisions counts from the day of delivery, even if emailed after hours.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave was necessary before the appellant came before this Court on the application and the appeal
- 2.Whether the learned Judge erred on the question of computation of time under sections 171 and 175 of the PPADA
Key legal issues
#Whether an appeal from the High Court's decision on a preliminary objection in a procurement judicial review required leave
No leave is required; section 175(4) of the PPADA grants an unimpeded right of appeal and prevails over the Civil Procedure Act provisions by virtue of section 5(1) of the PPADA
Section 175(4) grants the right of appeal to any person aggrieved by a decision of the High Court without imposing any condition or impediment. To the extent that section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules impose leave requirements on such appeals in procurement disputes, section 5(1) of the PPADA provides that the PPADA prevails in case of conflict. The preliminary objection by the 4th respondent therefore failed, though the appeal itself was dismissed on the merits of the time-computation question.
Computation of the 14-day period under section 175(1) of the PPADA where the Review Board's decision was delivered electronically at 8.26pm
The 14 days ran from 20th March 2025 and lapsed at midnight on 3rd April 2025; the application filed on 4th April 2025 was out of time
The court held that Parliament intended under section 175 to constrict time in all matters relating to filing, hearing and determination of public procurement disputes so they are expeditiously determined. General interpretation provisions (section 57 of Cap. 2, Article 259(5)(a) of the Constitution, Order 50 Rule 4) and Regulation 211 on business hours cannot be invoked to extend the period. The Practice Directions in Electronic Case Management fix the deadline for computation of time at 11.59.59pm Kenyan time.
Legal principles established
#- Section 175(4) of the PPADA grants an unimpeded right of appeal to the Court of Appeal without leave, and prevails over section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules in procurement disputes
- In computing the 14 days under section 175(1) of the PPADA, the day the Review Board's decision is delivered is counted, and the fact that the decision was electronically delivered outside business hours does not extend the period
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection raised by the 4th respondent is dismissed with each party bearing own costs
- 2.The notice of motion seeking stay and the substantive appeal are dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents
- 3.The interim orders issued by this Court on 5th May 2025 are vacated
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Nairobi High Court Misc. Application No. E041 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 175(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015 - appeal as of right from the High Court to the Court of Appeal
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings in respect of the tender pending appeal under Rule 5(2)(b)
The appeal was found to be without merit as the judicial review application was filed out of time; without a competent appeal, stay could not be granted
Interpretation that time under section 175(1) PPADA should be computed excluding the day of electronic delivery outside business hours
Parliament intended to constrict time in public procurement disputes for expeditious determination; the general interpretation provisions cannot displace section 175
Costs
The notice of motion and the substantive appeal dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents; the preliminary objection by the 4th respondent dismissed with each party to pay own costs; interim orders of 5th May 2025 vacated
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.
Our determination is that, section 175(4) of the PPADA does not provide for leave in case a person has been aggrieved by the decision of the High Court and seek to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.
In so far as section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules appear to impose an impediment or a condition on a person’s right to appeal the decision of the Court to the Court of Appeal in a dispute relating to public procurement and asset disposal, this would bring the proceedings into confiict with the PPADA.
the appellant cannot be heard to be placing reliance on either Order 50 Rule 4 or section 57(1) of Cap. 2 to say that, because the decision by the 1st respondent was electronically delivered on 20th March 2025 at 8.26pm, time be counted from the following day of 21st March 2025.
Consequently, the notice of motion seeking stay and the substantive appeal are found not merited. They are dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.
For avoidance of doubt, the interim orders issued by this Court on 5th May 2025 are vacated.
Issues in the judgment
#The numbered grounds of appeal and the appellant's submissions refer to the judicial review application as filed on 4th April 2025 in some places and as 'lodged on February 28, 2025' before the Review Board in others; the grounds also misstate the Review Board application number as 'No. 21 of 2015' and cite section 171(1) where the dispute concerns the Board's 21-day period
The appellant's submissions compute the lapsed date as 'April 04, 2025' while elsewhere stating the application was 'filed on April 04, 2025' as the 15th day, and the judgment records conflicting reasoning on whether excluding the delivery day would make the deadline 3rd or 4th April
Paragraph numbering is irregular in the original (repeated '31.'), and paragraph 31 states the 1st respondent 'had rendered its decision on 3rd April 2025 at 8.26pm' whereas the judgment repeatedly records the decision as delivered on 20th March 2025 at 8.26pm
Paragraph 28 refers to 'section 175(2)' of the PPADA where the discussion concerns section 175(4)
The judgment contains no case number for this appeal in the copy supplied, and the court below is referred to as striking out the chamber application in some passages while the record elsewhere describes it as dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Precision Experts Limited v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 3 others (Civil Appeal E301 of 2025) [2025] KECA 976 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/976/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.