
Public Procurement Timelines

“The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that the strict time frames under section 175(1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (PPADA), Cap 412C underscores the intention of Parliament to ensure that disputes relating to the PPADA are disposed of expeditiously.”
Introduction.
The Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2025 averred that the High Court was correct in finding that the application before it was filed outside the statutory window as provided under Section 175 of the PPADA, hence upholding the preliminary objection and ultimately striking out the application.
Background Of the Case
The Ministry of Defence (the appellants) invited the 2 nd respondent to submit a bid for the design, build and equipping of the Bomas International Convention Complex in Nairobi via direct procurement. The Bid was awarded on 22nd November 2023; however, no contract was signed for close to a year thereafter. Consequently, on 16th October 2024, the appellants terminated the tender.
Aggrieved, the 2nd respondent challenged the termination before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (the Review Board). The Review Board heard the matter and on 23rd December 2024 set aside the initial termination, therefore extending the tender validity by 90 days and directing that the process be concluded within 90 days.
Dissatisfied, the appellants sought Judicial Review in the High Court via an application dated 14th January 2025. The Review Board and the 2nd respondent filed Notices of Preliminary Objections urging the High Court to strike out the appellants’ application on the ground that it was time barred under section 175(1) of the PPADA. The High Court on 20th February 2025, agreed that the application was filed out of time.
Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the High Court’s Ruling, contending that the 14- day period under section 175(1) of the Act, should have excluded the Christmas recess as per Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
Issues for Determination by the Court of Appeal
The Court of appeal considered the issue whether in computing the 14 days prescribed under section 175 (1) of PPADA, regard should be had to Order 50 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to exclude the Christmas recess.
Appellants’ case
The appellants contended that section 175 (1) of PPADA does not oust the provisions of Order 50 Rule 4 of the CPR which provides that the period between 21st December in any year and the 13th day of January in the following year shall be omitted from any computation of time for doing any act.
They contended that the timelines under Section 175(1) of the Act did not contemplate the scenario created by Order 50 Rule 4 of the CPR based on which there was a lacuna. They called upon the Court to give a holistic interpretation of those provisions alongside section 5 of PPADA to avoid a construction that produces an absurd or impractical result.
The 2nd Respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that there was no contestation that the appellants’ application for Judicial Review was filed outside the 14 days set under Section 175 (1) of the Act. Furthermore, they contended that Order 50 Rule 4 of the CPR was subordinate legislation and cannot extend time set under the statute.
They submitted on the strength of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Aprim Consultants vs. Parliamentary Service Commission & Another (Civil Appeal No. E039 of 2021 [2021] KECA 1090) where it was held that timelines under 175 of PPADA are mandatory and cast in stone. They further submitted that by dint of section 5 of PPADA, the Act “shall prevail in case of any inconsistency between it and any other legislation”
The Court’s Analysis and Determination
The Court considered section 175 (1) of PPADA which requires any person aggrieved by the decision of the Review Board to seek redress in the High Court within fourteen days of the Review Board’s decision. Citing the decision in Aprim Consultants (above), the Court of Appeal emphasized Parliament’s intention for procurement disputes to be resolved expeditiously.
Therefore, the court held that indeed the 14 days lapsed on 6th January 2025, making the appellant’s application time-barred.
Addressing the applicability of Order 50 Rule 4 of the CPR, the Court relied on Maersk Kenya Limited vs. Murabu Chaka Zuma [2017] eKLR which clarified that Order 50, Rule 4 applies only to timelines under the CPR or court orders, thus not applicable to statutory timelines. Consequently, the Court held that Order 50 Rule 4 of the CPR could not enlarge time limited by statute.
Courts’ Reaffirmation in Ensuring Expeditious Disposal of Procurement Matters
Notably, in Burhani Engineers Limited vs. Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 4 Others at the High Court, our Firm successfully opposed an application filed out of time on behalf of the Rural Electrification and Renewable Energy Corporation.
The applicant sought an extension of time for filing its chamber summons citing the Judiciary’s E-Filing system outage delaying filing. The Applicant argued that this was out of its control and that section 175(1) of the PPADA did not anticipate the current electronic filing system, warranting the enlargement of time for filing the application.
The Court dismissed the application for being time barred and agreed with our submissions that the decision of the Review Board became final and binding on upon the lapse of 14 days as per section 175(1) of the PPADA.
This article has demonstrated that Courts will not consider applications filed outside the strict statutory window provided under section 175 (1) of the PPADA. Courts have emphasized the strict time frames under PPADA underscores Parliament’s intent to ensure the swift resolution of public procurement disputes.
Therefore, in order to mitigate potential losses, contracting authorities, tenderers and investors should familiarize themselves with Kenyan Public Procurement laws and the strict timelines under the Act.