Prestige Management Solutions Limited v Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board [2017] KEHC 2102 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  497 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND ASSET DISPOSAL ACT, 2015

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT, 2015

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CAP 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS

BETWEEN

PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS LIMITED...................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE

REVIEW BOARD …………………..........................................................RESPONDENT

PARITY PERFORMANCE AND COMPLIANCE LIMITED ...1ST INTERESTED PARTY

MINISTRY OF DEVOLUTION AND  PLANNING.…......…...2ND INTERESTED PARTY

JUDGMENT

1. On 11th August 2017  Honourable Odunga  J, Duty  Judge  in the Judicial Review Division granted  to the exparte applicant herein  Prestige  Management Solutions Limited, leave to commence Judicial Review proceedings to challenge by way of certiorari the decision of the Public Procurement Administrative  Review Board( Review Board) made  on  31st  July  2012 nullifying  and ordering  the  2nd interested  party,( Ministry  of Devolution  and Planning )  as the procuring entity to start  the  tender process  for  consultancy  services  to design  and  develop  a computerized Management Information System(MIS) for the Kenya Devolution Support Programme(KDSP)Tender No.MODP/SDD/RFP/15/2016-2017.

2. The substantive  notice of motion  was filed on  14th August  2017  in accordance  with the order of leave  made on  11th August  2017  cited above. The application is predicated  on  the statutory statement  and verifying  affidavit  accompanying the  application for leave  and the  annextures  thereto.

3. The exparte  applicant’s  case is  that on  2nd May 2017  the 2nd  interested party  ( Procuring Entity)  invited  parties to  submit a proposal  in respect of proposals  for consultancy  services  to design and develop  computerized Management  Information System(MIS) for the Kenya  Devolution Support Programme ((KDSP) Tender No. MODP/SDD/RFP/15/2016-2017. The exparte applicant submitted its proposal and the tender was  opened on 22nd May 2017.

4. On 29th  June   2017  the financial  bids   were opened and  in both  instances, representatives of the applicant  and the 1st interested   party Parity  Performance  and  Compliance Limited  were present.

5. That on  opening the financial bids, it was  apparent that the  applicant’s financial  bid  was  the lowest. That  at that stage, the 1st interested  party filed a request  for  review before  the respondent  raising  only one  ground namely, that the  respondent  had breached  the  Public Procurement and Asset  Disposal Act, 2015 as read with Section 7(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015 by failing to evaluate  the  proposals  within  21 days.

6. According to the applicant,  there  was no claim  that the  1st respondent  had suffered  or  risked  suffering, loss or  damage  due to the  breach of a duty imposed  on a procuring entity  by the Act  or Regulations by the failure to evaluate  the tender within  the 21  days  as alleged and  that neither  did it  seek  administrative  review within fourteen (14)  days from  the  date  of the lapse  of  the  21 days  as  required by  Section  167(1)  of the Public Procurement and  Asset  Disposal Act.  It is claimed  that despite  the  above shortcomings  in the  1st interested  party’s  request  for  review, the  Review Board  allowed  the  request  on  29th July  2017  and  ordered that  the  2nd interested  party Procuring Entity start the tender process for the consultancy services for  the  advertised  tender.

7. It is  claimed that the respondents  then made it  impossible for the decision of 29th July 2017 to be availed  to the parties despite frantic efforts  to access it.

8. It is alleged  that  the said  decision of  29th July  2017  is prima  facie  illegal, irrational, disproportional  and oppressive  to the extent  that it seeks  to annual a tender  process  for  reasons  that did not  occasion any party  to the  tender process.

9. It is therefore claimed that the said decision is prima facie illegal, unreasonable, irrational, disproportional and  oppressive  to the extent that  it leads to  worse of  consequences  of parties being told to start  the  process  afresh  after each of the parties  now knows the contents of each other’s  technical  and  financial bids.

10. The applicant  therefore believes that  it  is just  and  equitable  and  fair  that the said  decision of the  respondent  be  quashed   and  set aside. The motion and chamber summons  for leave  were  never  supported  by the  impugned  decision  and it  was  deposed  that despite  written  requests  to the Board  to avail the  decision, the Board had adamantly refused to avail  the decision.

11. The motion was opposed by the interested party and the respondent who contended that the application for leave was filed outside the 14 days stipulated in section 175(1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015, among other serious objections on the merits of the motion for judicial review.

12. At the hearing of the substantive  notice of motion  where parties argued orally, highlighting their respective  written submissions filed on record, this court heard  of different dates on which  the decision  which  was  being  challenged was made, and  which the 2nd  interested party  finally  annexed  to its  replying  affidavit, asserting that the decision was made on 27th July, 2017.

13. The  court, as a result, ordered  that the  record of  proceedings  of the Review Board  be availed to this court  for  perusal  and   directions  for  fair  administration of justice.  The   said order  was extracted  and  served on the  Review Board  but as  at the time of  writing this judgment, the  record of  proceedings  of the Review Board  giving rise to the  impugned  decision  have not  been availed to this court  in accordance with Article 165(6) and  (7) of the  Constitution.

14. That aside,  before delving  into the objections filed by the respondents and the interested party on the  merits  of the substantive  notice of motion, this court is  inclined first and  foremost, to  determine a preliminary question of whether the impugned  decision  was made on  31st  July  2017  or  27th July  2017  or  29th July 2017 and  whether  the  challenge  herein  was made  within the  14 days  of the decision and which  is that  14th day?

15. The letter  dated  3rd August 2017  written by  the  exparte   applicant’s  director  Mr William Ndungu  addressed  to the Secretary  of the Respondent  Review  Board  is clear that the applicant  who was the  interested party  was referring to the oral judgment  of the Board  Review  rendered by the Review Board  on 31st  July  2017  in respect  of the request  for  review  No. 62/2017.  Mr Ndungu   was  requesting  for the copy of the typed  judgment  which  was  to be due not later than  2nd August  2017  at  2. 30pm.  That letter   was received by the Review Board on 3rd August 2017.

16. In the chamber summons for leave to apply, the exparte  applicant   sought to  challenge   the  decision  of the  respondent  made on 29th July  2017, not  31st  July  2017, nullifying  and  ordering   the  2nd interested  party, as the  Procuring Entity  to start  the  tender process for consultancy  services  to design  and  develop Computerized Management  Information  System (MIS) for  the Kenya Devolution Support  Programme  (KDSP) Tender No.  MODP/SDD/PFP/15/2016/2017. The  applicant  also  prayed  that the grant  of leave do operate  as stay of implementation of the decision of the respondent  made on  29th July  2017  impugned.

17. In  the reliefs sought, the  applicant   was clear that the  certiorari  being sought  was for purposes  of quashing  the decision of the  respondent  made on  29th July  2017  nullifying  and  ordering  the  Procuring  Entity  to start the  tender  process  afresh.

18. The date  of the alleged  decision  as cited in the  substantive  notice of motion  dated 14th August  2017,  is , however, charged to read  31st July  2017  and  not  29th  July  2017.  It is  the  latter date’s decision that was the basis upon which  the chamber summons  for leave  was made  and  upon which  the  learned  Honourable Justice Odunga J granted  leave to  apply on 11th August 2017, and further  proceeded to order  that the leave  so granted  do operate as stay  of implementation of the  decision of the  Review Board.

19. The record  of proceedings of  11th August  2017  show that  Mr Ongoya  counsel for the  applicant  was  personally  present  before  Honourable  Odunga J  to argue  the  exparte  chamber  summons and he stated at page 2 of the hand written  proceedings that the  impugned decision  was made  on  29th July  2017  ordering   for  fresh tendering  process.

20. When the respondent  and  the interested parties  filed  their  respective responses to the substantive  notice of motion, the  1st  interested party  also filed  grounds of opposition and  notice of motion dated  22nd  August  2017 under certificate  of urgency  during the recess seeking  that the leave and  stay orders  granted on  11th August  2017 be set aside  and or vacated; the chamber summons  dated  11th August  2017  be struck out; the  notice of motion  dated  14th August  2017  be struck out and costs  be provided for.

21. The application  was predicated  on the grounds  among others  that the impugned  decision  of the Board  was made on  27th July 2017 yet the chamber summons  for  leave  was filed in court on  11th  August  2017  which  was  outside  the  14 days  stipulated  under Section  175(1)  of the  Public  Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015   which requires  that a party  who is  dissatisfied  with the decision  of the  respondent  to  file  Judicial Review  proceedings  within  14 days of the  decision  and that  Section 9(2) and (3) of the Law Reform Act and  Order  53  Rule  2  of the Civil  Procedure Rules, 2010  bar courts from  granting leave  if an  application is filed out of time; and that the  applicant  by concealing  the  decision from the  court, had come  to court with dirty hands  and  does not  deserve  the  leave and  stay order.

22. The 1st interested party annexed to the supporting affidavit thereof sworn by James Wangome its Chief Executive Officer, a copy of the decision in Review Board’s case No.  62/2017 Party Performance and Compliance   Ltd and Ministry of Devolution and Planning, State Department   of Devolution.

23. In that   decision  marked ‘JW1’, it  is clear that the  decision of the  Board is dated  27th July  2017  as  was later  supplied to  court a copy  of complete  decision by  Mr Gachuba, counsel for the  1st  interested party.

24. What  then emerges, even without  the proceedings  and  record of  the Review Board  being availed to this court  as  ordered  is that there is no such decision of the Review Board  made on  29th July  2017,  the basis upon  which leave and stay was granted  on  11th August  2017 by Honourable Justice Odunga.  It is the duty  of the applicant  to be  certain of the  date  on which  the impugned  decision   was made to enable   the court  exercise its  discretion to grant  or not  to  grant leave.

25. Where the court  grants leave  on the basis  of a decision which is not  in existence  in the sense that the applicant  is unable to prove that  there  was   a decision  made on  29th July  2017 capable  of being challenged, the leave  granted and  stay issued are a nullity.

26. In addition, the applicant, after  obtaining leave   on the basis  of  facts  presented  before  the court that the decision impugned   was made on  29th July  2017, now altered that date  to read  31st July  2017, yet the  statutory  statement  and  verifying  affidavit  accompanying the chamber summons for leave  and  stay all clearly  assert  that the impugned  decision  was made on 29th July  2017.

27. There was no attempt to amend these dates to accord with the dates of 31st July 2017, the date that the applicant claims the decision was orally made by the Review Board. Even if the amendment was sought, it would not cure the defect as leave had already been granted to challenge the decision of 29th July, 2017, which decision is non-existent.  Neither of the parties alluded to this aspect of these proceedings, and which this court finds to be critical for the determination of the merits of the impugned decision.

28. It follows, therefore, that, whether  the  decision  which is  now dated  27th July  2017  was or was not  availed to the exparte  applicant as at  11th August  2017  when  the applicant filed  the  application for leave  and stay, and or whether the decision was  made on  31st July  2017 or 27th July 2017, the notice of motion as filed and argued  is incompetent  before  the court  as it is predicated  upon a decision which was  and  is not  the  same  decision made on  29th July  2017  upon  which leave  of court  was  sought  and  granted  on  11th August  2017 by Hon Odunga J.

29. It is for that reason that  this court  would not  belabour wasting  precious  judicial time and  resources  delving  into  the issue  of whether  or not  the  leave  application  was filed  within  14 days in accordance with Section 175(1) of the Public Procurement  and  Asset Disposal Act; or  whether the  decision  was made on 27th  July  2017  or  31st  July  2017  and or whether failure by the Applicant to avail the decision of the Review Board to this court was fatal  to these proceedings.

30. I am satisfied  that the  exparte applicant  was not vigilant  in conducting these proceedings by making the court  ( Honourable  Odunga J) believe that  the impugned  decision  was made  on 29th July 2017 only for the applicant to  claim in the filed  substantive  notice of motion that the impugned  decision  which  was  not supplied  to it by the Review  Board  was made on 31st  July  2017.

31. The applicant is the author of its own misfortune for mixing dates thereby making it difficult for the court to consider the merits of the case.  The notice of motion as filed cannot go beyond this stage on account   of the contradictions pointed out above.  The same is hereby struck out.

32. As there are serious  issues  touching  on whether  the  impugned  decision  was made  on 31st  July  2017  or  27th July  2017  which  issues  remain unresolved, I order that each party  shall bear  their own costs of  these proceedings  which  are hereby struck out.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 13th day of November 2017.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Otieno Mudany h/b for Mr  Elisha Ongoya for the exparte applicant

N/A for the Respondents

N/A for interested party

CA:George