Kenya Ports Authority & 1 other v Kalmar Finland Oy & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a procurement appeal filed just one day late, confirming the 7-day PPADA deadline is absolute.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal filed one day outside the 7-day statutory window under section 175(4) PPADA should be struck out
Yes. Filing fees were paid on 5th June 2026, one day after the 7-day period lapsed on 4th June 2026, ousting the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court accepted the computation that time started running on 29th May 2026 and lapsed on 4th June 2026. The record of appeal was rejected by the Deputy Registrar on 4th June and only approved and paid for on 5th June. Given the sui generis, time-bound nature of section 175(4) jurisdiction, filing outside the window automatically deprives the Court of jurisdiction, and the appeal is struck out.
Whether rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 can stop the running of the statutory 7-day timeline
No. Appeals under section 175 PPADA are sui generis and the PPADA prevails over conflicting written law, including the Rules.
The Court reaffirmed prior decisions that procurement proceedings are sui generis and that section 5 of the PPADA provides that in case of conflict with any other law, the Act prevails. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal Rules cannot enlarge, abridge or suspend the statutory 7-day window, which speaks to the very jurisdiction of the Court.
Whether equitable doctrines (actus curiae neminem gravabit; lex non cogit ad impossibilia) can excuse late filing
No. Strict timelines exist so that jurisdiction is seized in the moment and lapse with the timeline.
The appellants relied on Indian authorities and a Kenyan High Court decision on the maxim that no act of the court should harm a litigant. The Court rejected the argument as skewed, holding that jurisdiction lapses with the lapse of the timeline, and noted the appellants did not demonstrate they put in all efforts, including physically visiting the court, to file within time.
Legal principles established
#- A document filed outside the 7-day window under section 175(4) PPADA automatically ousts the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in public procurement appeals; the timelines are cast in stone and cannot be varied or stopped by the Court of Appeal Rules.
- Appeals under section 175 of the PPADA are sui generis and rank above the Court of Appeal Rules; in case of conflict the PPADA prevails by dint of section 5.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st respondent's notice of motion to strike out the appeal is allowed
- 2.The appellants' appeal is struck out
- 3.The cross-appeal also falls by the wayside (is struck out)
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 175(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (appeal against decision of the High Court in procurement matters)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Ports Authority & 1 other v Kalmar Finland Oy & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1459/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.