BY SAM ALFAN.
CMC Motiors Group limited has obtained orders barring Interior Principal Secretary Karanja Kabicho from advertising or awarding tender for leasing of motor vehicles from local assemblers.
Justice John Mativo declared that the company’s rights and legitimate expectation for the award of tender for Phase V under No. MICNG/SDI/008/2018-2019 for leasing motor vehicles was breached by PS.
“An order of prohibition is issued to the interested party (Interior Principal Secretary and CMC Motors Group Limited) from advertising, inviting, accepting, evaluating bids and awarding contracts for the tender No. MICNG/SDI/004/2019-202 for leasing of motor vehicles from local assemblers”, ordered Mativo.
The court also suspended the decision and orders of the Interior Ministry in Public Procurement Administrative Review application No. 99 of 2019 delivered on September 18, 2019 for 14 days.
The court also suspended the retender, acceptance, evaluation or award of the said tender for two weeks.
In the court documents, the company said Public Procurement Administrative Review decision dismissed the application for review and found that the Interior Ministry and CMC Motors Group led to termination of tender on the ground that the prices quoted were higher than the market prices was valid.
Through their lawyer Migos Ogamba, the company told the court that PS has already re-advertised the tender through restricted tendering before the expiry of 14 days as provided by section 175 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015.
“In arriving at the decision dismissing the application for review and rendering the Interior Ministry termination of the tender, the public Procurement administrative Board did not take into account relevant consideration CMC Group Motors Limited,” reads part of the application.
CMC Motors said the board acted unreasonably in arriving at the decision as it did not direct itself properly in law and failed to call to its attention matters that it was bound to consider before and while making its determination.
“The respondent’s failed to call to its attention that leasing of motor vehicles phase II and leasing of motor vehicles phase v were mutually exclusive tenders and contracts with their own unique set of requirements,” the company argued.
The company further added that the board failed to call to its attention that LOT 7 (heavy duty , utility passenger vehicle , 4×4 , L.W.B , 2001-3000cc, petrol) was not in motor vehicle leasing program phase II but was introduced in motor vehicle leasing program phase V and as such there was obviously going to be a difference in total leasing price between the two.
The company accused the board of failing to take into account the issues raised such as there was no proper actuarial price matrix that took into account all parameters of the lease program which issues the board was bound by the law to consider.
The company stated that the board failed to take into consideration that there was no proper actuarial price matrix that took into account various parameters in motor vehicle leasing program such as motor vehicle specifications, insurance, driver training service centres, vehicle replacements and out of contract prices and the decision is unreasonable.
