Sharpcut Designers Ltd v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others

The Court adopted its prior interpretation that section 175 is plain, unambiguous and mandatory, depriving the Court of discretion to enlarge time. Section 175(5) took effect upon lapse of the 45 days from 20th September 2024. Even though the delay was largely occasioned by the Court's own rejection of the record, the Court's hands were tied by the statute; the ruling of 7th April 2025 merely granted leave to upload a properly marked record and did not extend the timeline.

The Court held that every tender is determined within its own provisions and the procuring entity designs its own terms. Judicial review is confined to the fairness of the process, not a qualitative re-examination of the tender evaluation. Form 3.2 was a mandatory requirement, the appellant's failure to complete it warranted disqualification, and the procuring entity had discretion, not obligation, to seek clarifications. The decision under review was not so outrageous in its defiance of logic as to warrant interference.

Relying on Redhill Heights Investments Limited v Suzanne Achieng Butler, the Court noted that a finding of mootness ordinarily deprives the Court of jurisdiction, but the Court retains discretion to decide otherwise moot cases where formulation of controlling legal principles would guide the bench, the bar and the public. The parties had fully addressed the Court on the merits, so the Court rendered itself while acknowledging no live controversy remained.