The ruling seems to suggest that an entity (ie government) as a bureaucracy can issue a license inappropriately (by failing to follow their own laws) - affix their signatures and enter into a contract - and then after the fact have the agreement made void because those who signed failed to follow their bureaucratic procedures that were in place at the time of issuance.
Why should PWCRF be punished because the government of Kenya failed to follow their bureaucracy (their laws) before issuing a license?
I fail to understand how a contract can later be made void because one of those who represented the entity failed to do their proper due diligence prior to signing a legally binding document.
Coinllectibles' Subsidiary, Grand Town Development Limited, Acquires Rare Song Dynasty Ceramics Worth Over USD28million • COSG • Apr 18, 2024 8:03 AM
ILUS Provides Form 10-K Filing Update • ILUS • Apr 17, 2024 9:54 AM
Glucotrack Announces Expansion of Its Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology to Epidural Glucose Monitoring • GCTK • Apr 17, 2024 8:00 AM
Maybacks Global Entertainment To Fire Up 24 New Stations in Louisiana • AHRO • Apr 16, 2024 1:30 PM
Cannabix Technologies Begins Certification of Contactless Alcohol Breathalyzer, Re-Brands product series to Breath Logix • BLOZF • Apr 16, 2024 8:52 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Acquires Surge Distribution LLC from Loud Beverage Group, Inc. (LBEV) • KGKG • Apr 16, 2024 8:30 AM