{"id":748,"date":"2026-04-02T13:56:32","date_gmt":"2026-04-02T13:56:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gkmuturi.ke\/law\/?p=748"},"modified":"2026-04-02T13:56:32","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T13:56:32","slug":"court-of-appeal-affirms-strict-timelines-for-procurement-reviews-and-limits-procurement-boards-jurisdiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gkmuturi.ke\/law\/2026\/04\/02\/court-of-appeal-affirms-strict-timelines-for-procurement-reviews-and-limits-procurement-boards-jurisdiction\/","title":{"rendered":"Court of Appeal Affirms Strict Timelines for Procurement Reviews and Limits Procurement Board’s Jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Author: Gideon K. Muturi<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court held that a request for review must be filed within 14 days of the earliest procurement breach, failing which the PPARB lacks jurisdiction.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our firm has successfully defended an appeal challenging the High Court\u2019s decision in Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; County Government of Nyeri & another; Utmost Insurance Brokers Limited & another (Ex parte)<\/strong>, in which the High Court quashed the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board in Review No. 111 of 2025<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal (Musinga, P; Lilan and Dr. Okello JJA)<\/em> has dismissed the appeal in Civil Appeal No. E137 of 2026 and affirmed the Judgment of the High Court, thereby upholding the award of the tender for comprehensive insurance cover for executives and staff of Nyeri County to our client.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal\u2019s key finding was that once a bidder becomes aware of a procurement breach prejudicial to its interests, it is not entitled to wait for the outcome of its bid or for notification of award but to file the request for review within 14 days from that date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under section 167(1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, read together with section 87 of the Act and Regulation 203(1), (2)(c) and (3), as well as the Fourteenth Schedule to the Public Procurement (Asset Disposal) Regulations, 2020, an aggrieved tenderer must file a request for review within fourteen (14) days of the occurrence of the alleged breach, where the breach arises before an award is made; notification of intention to enter into a contract; or the occurrence of a breach after the award, whichever is the earliest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the present case, the Appellant, Goldfield Insurance Brokers Limited, was aware of the issue concerning the clarification of the bid bond placed by the 4th Respondent on 6 November 2025, shortly after the tender opening. The Court observed that nothing prevented the Appellant from filing its request for review within the statutory period. However, the request was only lodged on 1 December 2025, outside the prescribed timeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant\u2019s Request for Review having been filed outside the statutory 14 day period, the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emphasising that jurisdiction is the \u201clifeline\u201d of any dispute, the Court agreed with the High Court (Aburili J) <\/em>that the Board ought to have struck out the request for review in limine<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court further observed that, had the Board properly declined jurisdiction, the result would have been the same namely, that the 4th respondent, having been declared the most responsive tenderer, was lawfully entitled to the award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court confined itself to the jurisdictional issue and declined to make detailed findings on the remaining issues, noting that it was unnecessary to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also held that the High Court did not exceed its supervisory jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings, and that its additional findings on the merit of the claim served to clarify, rather than overstep, the matters in dispute. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision reinforces the principle that procurement proceedings are strictly time-bound, and that aggrieved bidders must act promptly upon becoming aware of any alleged breach. It further affirms that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board cannot assume jurisdiction over a request for review filed outside the statutory fourteen (14) day period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision therefore strengthens certainty, finality, and procedural discipline in public procurement disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appeal was successfully defended by Gideon K. Muturi assisted by Florence Mugi, Anita Nyaga<\/strong> and Cynthia Cherono (Trainee Advocate)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
NOTICE: The content of this alert is intended to be of general use only and should not be relied upon without seeking specific legal advice on any matter.<\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For More Information, See below <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/span>
\n
Get in touch<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
32 peponi road
info@gkmuturi.ke<\/p>\n\n\n\n
+254-726-020-020
gkmuturi.ke<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n