Brief Facts
We recently successfully defended a Request for Review in PPARD No. 51 of 2026 before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (“the Board”), where an entity in a joint venture sought to challenge the decision of a procuring entity to the exclusion of its joint venture partner.
The Applicant sought review of the decision of the Director General of the Communications Authority of Kenya in relation to Tender No. CA/SCM/IOT/01/2025–2026 for the Supply, Delivery, Installation, Configuration, and Maintenance of a Revenue Assurance System.
The Applicant, Global Voice Group S.A., had submitted its bid pursuant to a joint venture agreement with Advatech Office Supplies Ltd. However, the Request for Review was filed solely by Global Voice Group S.A., to the exclusion of Advatech Office Supplies Ltd and without the authority, sanction, or participation of the joint venture partner.
On behalf of the Respondents, we raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging both the locus standi of the Applicant and the jurisdiction of the Board to entertain the Request for Review.
The Respondents’ Objection was anchored on sections 2 and 167(1) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act (“PPADA”). Having submitted the tender as a joint venture, the Applicant could not institute proceedings in its individual capacity, as it did not qualify as a “tenderer” or a “candidate” under the Act. The PPADA only envisages a “candidate” or “tenderer” as having the capacity to invoke the Board’s jurisdiction under section 167(1).
The Applicant, on the other hand, argued that the joint venture arrangement was solely for purposes of tender submission and that it retained independent locus standi to challenge the procuring entity’s decision before the Board.
Determination of the Board
The Board upheld the Preliminary Objection and dismissed the Request for Review for want of jurisdiction.
In arriving at its decision, the Board considered the issue of locus standi and reiterated its mandate as a specialized and independent procurement review body established to hear and determine procurement and asset disposal disputes.
The Board observed that section 167(1) of the PPADA grants the right to seek administrative review only to a “candidate” or “tenderer” who claims to have suffered or risks suffering loss or damage due to an alleged breach of duty imposed on a procuring entity under the Act.
The Board proceeded to define the terms “candidate” and “tenderer” within the meaning of the PPADA and noted that Global Voice Group S.A. had not submitted a tender in its individual capacity. Rather, the tender had been submitted by the joint venture identified as Global Voice Group S.A./Advatech Office Supplies Ltd Joint Venture. The Board also considered the joint venture agreement submitted by the parties.
Accordingly, the Board held that the entity capable of claiming loss or damage under section 167(1) of the Act was the joint venture comprising both Global Voice Group S.A. and Advatech Office Supplies Ltd, and not Global Voice Group S.A. acting independently.
The Board further held that, to satisfy the requirements of section 167(1), a joint venture bidder can only institute proceedings jointly, albeit as separate and distinct legal entities pursuing a common cause. Any request for administrative review must therefore be brought collectively by all members of the joint venture within the prescribed statutory timelines.
Importantly, the Board emphasized that members of a joint venture or consortium remain distinct legal entities. Consequently, no single member may unilaterally institute a Request for Review or take legal action on behalf of the others without express authority or consent as provided in the joint venture or consortium agreement.
The Board ultimately held that the Applicant lacked locus standi to institute the Request for Review and that the Board could not entertain proceedings commenced by a party without the legal capacity to invoke its jurisdiction. The Request for Review was therefore found to be fatally defective, having been instituted without the authority or participation of the joint venture partner.
As a result, the Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the substantive issues raised in the Request for Review.
Conclusion
This decision sets an important precedent for parties participating in public procurement through joint ventures or consortium arrangements. Once a tender is submitted as a joint venture, the constituent entities are collectively regarded as the “tenderer” for purposes of the PPADA. Consequently, any challenge arising from the procurement process, including a Request for Review before the Board, must be undertaken jointly unless otherwise expressly authorized.
We also successfully obtained a similar decision in PPARB No. 56 of 2026, which involved substantially similar issues concerning a different Applicant operating under a joint venture arrangement. In that matter, the Request for Review was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The PPADA and the attendant Regulations prescribe strict procedural requirements governing procurement disputes before the Board. Our team has extensive experience advising and representing candidates, tenderers, and procuring entities before the Board and the Courts. We have successfully prosecuted and defended complex procurement disputes and continue to provide strategic legal counsel on procurement law, process, and procedure.
Disclaimer
This alert is for informational purposes only and should not be taken or be construed as a legal opinion. If you have any queries or need any clarifications as to any aspects of procurement laws and procedures, please do not hesitate to contact Innocent Muganda – Managing Partner, (muganda@saganabiriq.com) and Winnie Kungu (winnie@saganabiriq.com), for further assistance.