Page 5

01/07/2026

Dear Diary,

Happy new month!!! (Its my birthday month, yaaaayyyy🥳)
Also... KSL oral exams are this month, so if today's Page feels extra nerdy, blame the revision😭

Anyways, here is today’s page:

1. How does computation of time work? Especially under the Statute of Limitation. Like if an accident occurs on 21st May 2021, when is the deadline for filing a suit? Is it 22nd May 2024 or 21st May 2024? These questions have been well answered in the case of Great Tang Trading Kenya Ltd & another v Speedaf Logistics Kenya Ltd & another [2026] (I loooooved reading this case, esp the opening line. It opens with a poem!! <3) Anyways, the Court dismissed the appeal and the case on account of it being time barred. It stated that the suit ought to have been filed on 21st May and not 22nd. “Time is too rigid for those who litigate.”

   Takeaway: When computing limitation periods, don’t assume you have “one extra day.” Count carefully coz being late by a single day can be fatal.

2. Can a Court "Google" evidence to uphold an administrative decision? The Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. E317 of 2026 answered with a firm no. The Court reaffirmed that in judicial review courts supervise the legality of administrative decisions. They do not reconstruct the evidentiary record or cure deficiencies by undertaking their own factual investigations. Its on this basis that it faulted the High Court for relying on material obtained from the Public Procurement Information Portal that had not been placed before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board, holding that compliance with statutory requirements must be proved before the tribunal itself, not supplemented later through judicial inquiry.

   Takeaway: Judicial review is about reviewing the decision that was made, not building a better one using evidence that wasn't before the original decision-maker.

3. Does a lawyer’s experience stay with the firm or with the lawyer? - The Court of Appeal answered that question in one of its decisions last week (Okoth & Kiplagat Advocates - vs- Public Procurement Administrative Review Board and 3 Others). The Court held that a law firm’s expertise cannot be separated from the advocates who make up that firm. Put simply, if a partner joins a new firm, they don’t leave their years of professional experience at the old one. That experience can lawfully be taken into account when evaluating the new firm’s qualifications in a public procurement tender. The Court also found that the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) had not rewritten the tender document by adopting this interpretation. Rather, it had simply given the document a commercially sensible reading.

Ps. Before getting to the main issue in that case, the Court also dealt with an interesting preliminary objection.

The respondent argued that the appeal had been filed out of time contrary to section 175(4) of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, which requires procurement appeals to be lodged within 7 days. The appellant submitted that the apparent delay was caused by technical difficulties with the Court’s Case Tracking System (CTS).

The Court acknowledged that the seven-day timeline remains strict and mandatory. However, it found that, based on the material before it, it could not confidently conclude that the appellant had actually filed late. Where there is a plausible and unrefuted contention that the apparent delay was occasioned by the Court’s own filing infrastructure, it would be unjust to deny a litigant access to justice on that basis.

Takeaway: Statutory timelines are MANDATORY. And in this case the Court did not relax the statutory timelines, it simply found that non-compliance had not been established with sufficient certainty.

4. Can the President appoint a Cabinet that doesn't satisfy the two-thirds gender principle? - You’ve probably already seen headlines like “High Court Declares Ruto’s Cabinet Unconstitutional” Well, here is the case. (And aki the case is bulky!! Its basically conlaw revision disguised as one case fr)

   In relation to the composition of the Cabinet, the Court found that:

   a) The "Cabinet" for Article 27(8) purposes is made up of: President + Deputy President + Attorney General + Cabinet Secretaries (Article 152(1)), expressly including the AG and excluding the Secretary to the Cabinet (a support office under Article 154, not a member) = 25 members. As at the date of the case, the Cabinet had 7 women (28%) and 18 men (72%) and so the number of women was short of the required minimum of 9. Following this, the Court ordered that appointments of Cabinet Secretaries in conformity to Article 27(8)CoK be done within 120 days from the date of the Judgment.

   b) Unlike elective bodies like the Parliament, where the Supreme Court's 2012 Advisory Opinion allows progressive realization pending enabling legislation, appointive bodies must comply immediately. The Court found that the President and Parliament directly control composition of the Cabinet and so there is no comparable structural impediment. Consequently the Cabinet currently violates Article 27(8).

   Ps. The Court also handled other issues:

   a) Presidential immunity under Article 143 CoK - the Court distinguished personal civil liability (barred) from judicial review of the constitutionality of presidential acts (not barred). It found that immunity protects the office holder, not the legality of executive action.

   b) Political question doctrine - The Court held that the Constitution establishes neither absolute autonomy nor constitutional immunity for any arm of government. It then stated that the Judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, is vested with the responsibility of ensuring that constitutional boundaries are observed. It then held that appointment processes are reviewable for legality even though the choice of appointee is not. Like the Court can assess whether constitutional procedure was followed, not who should have been appointed.

   c) Reappointment of dismissed Cabinet Secretaries - Court found that dismissal under Article 152(5)(b) is a discretionary, non-disciplinary power; it does not trigger the disqualification in Article 75(3), which applies only to removal for proven Chapter Six misconduct. Absent any finding of integrity violations against the dismissed CSs, nothing barred their fresh nomination and re-vetting. However, on this issue, Ngaah J dissented. He reasoned that Article 259(10), which allows reappointment only where "qualified", combined with the President's own stated rationale for the dismissal, made the CSs ineligible for return.

   d) Appointment of "opposition" figures - Court held that appointment of someone in the ‘opposition’ is not unconstitutional. It further noted that the phrase “opposition parties” has not been defined in both the Constitution and the Political parties Act. Ngaah J also dissented on this issue. In his opinion, the incorporation of ODM MPs/officials outside the formal coalition/merger procedures in the Political Parties Act is unconstitutional and an affront to Article 4's multiparty guarantee.

   Takeaway: The Cabinet judgment is so much more than just the two-thirds gender rule. Its also a good revision case on presidential immunity and the political question doctrine.

   Did I miss a legal update, judgment, gazette notice, or development worth knowing about? Drop it in the comments. My future self (and possibly other confused law students) will thank you :)

   Legally yours,
   Rose.