02/07/2026
THE COST OF DELAY IN PROCUREMENT PROCEEDINGS
Case: Civil Appeal E1012 of 2025 — ELC Electroconsult S.P.A. vs Sintecnica Engineering S.R.L (in JV with Steam S.R.L) & 3 Others, decided 19 December 2025.
Background:KenGen tendered consultancy services for the Olkaria VII Geothermal Power Project. ELC Electroconsult was declared the winning bidder, but Sintecnica (represented by the firm) challenged this before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, which ruled in Sintecnica's favor. The High Court upheld that ruling on judicial review. ELC then appealed, filing a Notice of Appeal on 26 November 2025 and a Record of Appeal on 28 November 2025.
Key dispute: Sintecnica sought to strike out the appeal as time-barred under Section 175(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (PPADA), 2015, arguing the statutory deadlines are strict and non-extendable. ELC argued that under the Court of Appeal Rules, filing a Notice of Appeal is sufficient to be "within time," with the full Record of Appeal to follow later.
Ruling:The Court of Appeal agreed with Sintecnica, holding that procurement appeals are *sui generis* (a special category) and governed by PPADA's strict timelines rather than the standard Court of Appeal Rules — citing Section 5 of PPADA, which gives the Act precedence over conflicting laws. An appeal is only "filed" for Section 175(4) purposes once the Memorandum and Record of Appeal are filed and court fees paid — not merely upon filing a Notice of Appeal. Since ELC missed this deadline, the appeal was struck out with costs awarded to Sintecnica.
Significance: The decision reinforces that the 7-day statutory window for filing procurement appeals is mandatory and cannot be extended by relying on ordinary Court of Appeal procedural rules.
To read the full article clink the link
