Case Analysis

Procurement Lawyer and Advocate at Milimani High Court — Judicial Review Division, Nairobi: Review Board Stay in China Road

If you need a procurement lawyer at Milimani High Court — Judicial Review Division, Nairobi, an advocate should review your documents and any deadline. This article analyses China Road and Bridge Corporation v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 4 others, explains the court’s decision and identifies practical records to prepare for a review of your situation.

A Nairobi procurement lawyer or judicial review advocate should distinguish permission to challenge a review board from a final decision setting its proceedings aside. China Road and Bridge Corporation obtained leave to pursue prohibition and a stay concerning PPARB Application No. 31 of 2026. The ruling did not finally decide the board’s jurisdiction, allocate a tender or establish contempt by any participant.

The challenge concerned a second review request

The applicant filed a chamber summons dated 9 March 2026 under a certificate of urgency. It asked for leave to seek prohibition against the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board hearing, determining or continuing the identified application. It also requested that any leave granted operate as a stay of further proceedings.

The applicant described the second request for review as bordering on contempt proceedings and challenged the board’s jurisdiction. Kenya Railways Corporation, its managing director and named competing construction interests appeared in the reported proceeding. Those descriptions identify the parties and the complaint, but the short ruling does not set out a final substantive determination of their respective procurement rights.

The court considered arguability at the leave stage

Justice Aburili considered the summons and heard the applicant’s counsel ex parte. The judge found a prima facie arguable case concerning whether the respondents could hear the second review request before hearing and deciding it. That threshold allowed the proposed challenge to proceed for full argument.

The ruling expressly distinguishes arguability from inevitable success. An arguable case is one fit to be heard rather than one that must ultimately succeed. This matters when a contractor reports that it has won judicial review after receiving an interim order: the order may preserve the position while the respondent and interested parties still have to be heard on the substantive motion.

Leave and stay were both granted

The court granted leave to seek the prohibition order requested in the specified prayer. It required the main motion to be filed and served within twenty-one days. Because the leave application was in a miscellaneous file, the substantive motion was to be filed in a separate substantive judicial review file. Those directions were part of the result, not optional drafting suggestions.

The judge also ordered that leave operate as a stay of proceedings in PPARB Application for Review No. 31 of 2026. The wording was tied to that particular review proceeding. It should not be expanded into a restraint over every tender, every board application or every action of Kenya Railways. A person affected needs the sealed order to identify its scope and duration.

Closing the miscellaneous file did not decide the merits

The final paragraph closed the miscellaneous file. That closure followed the direction to commence the substantive motion in its own file. It did not mean that a final prohibition judgment had been entered or that the applicant no longer needed to file and serve the next proceeding.

The reported ruling gives no damages, repayment award or final tender allocation. It also does not establish that the substantive motion was later filed within time or how it ended. Before relying on the stay in a current project decision, obtain the subsequent motion, directions, variations and final determination, if any.

Build the review-board chronology before seeking relief

For a similar procurement enquiry, supply the first and second review requests, decisions already issued, notifications, service records and tender documents. Identify the jurisdictional error alleged and the act the board is about to take. Keep any claim of contempt separate from proof that a particular prior order binds a party and remains operative.

A Nairobi procurement advocate also needs a diary of filing and service deadlines and copies of every interim order. Explain the precise temporary relief needed to prevent the proposed challenge becoming ineffective. This case shows that leave, stay and final prohibition answer different procedural questions; accurate case preparation follows each stage through its own documents instead of treating an initial favourable ruling as the end of the dispute.

Read the full primary decision reproduced by SheriaHub.

Editorial analysis of the cited decision, checked on 5 October 2026. Practical document guidance is commentary; later orders may affect the current position.