Wakilii

Seyani Brothers & Co (U) Ltd v Roko Construction Limited (Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 148 · 2026 Appeal Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision in HCCA No.59 of 2017, which itself was an appeal from the PPDA Appeals Tribunal concerning a public procurement award.
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent for want of jurisdiction; each party to bear its own costs.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal as incompetent without resolving the constitutional fair-hearing grounds. A right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be implied; a court cannot confer appellate jurisdiction on itself. Section 118(6) of the PPDA Act, in mandatory terms, bars any appeal against a High Court decision dealing with matters arising from the PPDA Appeals Tribunal, and section 118(5) makes such a decision final and conclusive. Because the High Court decision under challenge arose from the Tribunal, no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant may seek relief through other forums but not by appeal. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Facts

The National Drugs Authority (NDA) invited bids for the construction of a building. Six bidders, including the Appellant and the Respondent, took part, and the contract was awarded to the Appellant. The Respondent's administrative review by the NDA and complaint to the PPDA were rejected. On review, the PPDA Appeals Tribunal found that the Evaluation Committee had deviated from the bid solicitation criteria and that the contract had been signed during the administrative review period contrary to section 90(7) of the PPDA Act; it set aside the PPDA decision but did not cancel the Appellant's contract. The Appellant was not a party to the Tribunal proceedings. The Respondent appealed to the High Court (HCCA No.59 of 2017), where the trial judge added the Appellant as a party, declared its contract a nullity, cancelled it, and ordered the contract be awarded to the Respondent. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal challenging jurisdiction and alleging breaches of its right to a fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court decision arising from the PPDA Appeals Tribunal was competent.
  2. Whether the proceedings before the PPDA Tribunal and the High Court accorded the Appellant a fair hearing under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out for being incompetent.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal as a Creature of Statute
A right of appeal exists only where it is conferred by a clear provision of statute; it cannot be implied, and a court cannot arrogate appellate jurisdiction to itself.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Finality of High Court Decisions on PPDA Tribunal Matters
Section 118(6) of the PPDA Act, in mandatory terms, bars any appeal against a decision of the High Court dealing with matters arising from the PPDA Appeals Tribunal, and under section 118(5) such a decision is final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to any other court.
Civil Procedure — Competence of Appeal — Effect of a Statutory Bar on Appeals
An appeal lodged in contravention of a statutory bar on appeals is incompetent and must be struck out, leaving the aggrieved party to seek relief through other forums rather than by appeal.

Legislation cited (9)

  • PPDA Act 2003 s.90(7)
  • PPDA Act s.118(1)
  • PPDA Act s.118(3)
  • PPDA Act s.118(5)
  • PPDA Act s.118(6)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 17
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Rule 102(c)

Cases cited (11)

  • Mohammed Zziwa Kizito and Others v Spidiqua Umma Foundation (HCCS No. 12 of 2008)
  • Crane Bank Ltd v Nipun Narottam Bhatia (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014)
  • Ridge v Baldwin[1953] All ER 55 at page 11
  • Caroline Turyatemba v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • Dr. Terry Kahuma v UNBS and Another (HCCS No. 135 of 2012)
  • Tang Gas Distributors Ltd V Sai &Others[2014] 3 EA
  • Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Pius Mugalasi (Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2008)
  • Oriental Insurance Brokers v Transocean (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • AG V Shah(1971)EA
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Donna Kamuli (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 29 of 2019)
  • Kasiita and 2 Others v Uganda [2021] UGCA 239
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.