Wakilii

Abasamia Hwolerane Association Limited v Jinja City Council (Application No 18 of 2021)

Tribunal · [2021] UGPPDPAAT 3 · 2021 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second application to the Tribunal challenging re-evaluation of procurement bids following earlier Tribunal decision
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; procurement process to continue

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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 Tribunal struck out the application as incompetent. The applicant failed to prove lack of impartiality by the respondent as required under section 89(9) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Amendment) Act 2021. Additionally, the application was filed one day out of time—on 21 September 2021 instead of the statutory deadline of 20 September 2021—thereby extinguishing the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Statutory time limits are mandatory and cannot be extended.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; procurement process to continue

Facts

Jinja City Council advertised a procurement for revenue collection services. Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd (the Applicant) was ranked second-best evaluated bidder. After administrative review, the Applicant filed Application No. 12 of 2021 before the Tribunal, which was partly allowed and directed re-evaluation. Following re-evaluation, the Applicant was disqualified for non-responsiveness to experience and audited accounts requirements. Unique Commodity Services Limited was recommended for award. The Applicant, alleging lack of impartiality, filed a second application (No. 18 of 2021) directly to the Tribunal on 21 September 2021, seeking review of the re-evaluation decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application before the Tribunal is competent
  2. Whether the Applicant had locus standi to file the Application directly to the Tribunal without exhausting administrative review
  3. Whether the Application was filed within the statutory time limit prescribed by section 91I(2) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Amendment) Act 2021
  4. Whether the Applicant proved lack of impartiality by the Respondent sufficient to invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 89(9)

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Respondent may continue with the procurement to its logical conclusion.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 21 September 2021 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Jurisdiction of Tribunals — Locus Standi — Burden of Proof
A tribunal has a duty to inquire into the existence of facts to determine whether it has jurisdiction, and jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given. Locus standi means a right to appear in court, and a person without locus standi has no right to be heard even on whether they have a case worth listening to.
Administrative Law — Bias and Impartiality — Standard of Proof — Reasonable Suspicion
To successfully challenge administrative action on grounds of bias or lack of impartiality, a party must prove reasonable suspicion of bias or real likelihood of bias with cogent and reasonable evidence. Mere vague suspicion or fanciful allegations without evidential foundation cannot constitute proof of bias. The burden of proving bias lies on the party alleging it.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Direct Application to Tribunal — Conflict of Interest
Under section 89(9) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Amendment) Act 2021, a bidder may apply directly to the Tribunal only where the bidder believes the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest or that the matter cannot be handled impartially by the procuring entity. Such belief must be pleaded and proved with cogent evidence; mere allegation without proof is insufficient to clothe the Tribunal with jurisdiction.
Statutory Interpretation — Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance — Computation of Time
Time limits set by statute are matters of substantive law and must be strictly complied with. Under section 91I(2) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Amendment) Act 2021, an application alleging lack of impartiality must be filed within ten calendar days from the date the omission or breach is alleged to have occurred. Where the tenth day falls on a Sunday, it is excluded and the next working day becomes the deadline. Failure to file within the statutory period extinguishes the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Statutory Time Limits — No Power to Extend Time
There is no enabling provision within the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act that accords the Tribunal power to enlarge or extend time limits set by statute. Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (14)

  • K-Solutions Ltd v Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (Application No. 16 of 2021)
  • Beautiful Engineering & Equipment Ltd v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 15 of 2021)
  • Njau & Others vs. City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397 at 407
  • OWNERS OF MOTOR VESSEL "LILLIAN S" VS CALTEX OIL (KENYA) LTD (1989) KLR 1
  • Baryaruha v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 149 of 2016)
  • Uganda v Patricia Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014)
  • Metropolitan Properties Ltd vs Lannon [1968] 3 All ER 304
  • Mohammed Oladapo Ojengbede v. M. O. Esan (Loja-Oke) (S.C. 132/1991) [2001] NGSC 58
  • R. v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy (1924) 1 K.B. 259
  • R. v. Camborne Justices & Anr Ex parte Pearce (1955) 1 Q.B. 41
  • Federation of Railway Officers Association v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Kiyindi Electrical and Engineering Ltd v PPDA (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2020)
  • Empire Tools v PPDA (Application No. 8 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abasamia Hwolerane Association Limited v Jinja City Council (Application No 18 of 2021) 2021 UGPPDPAAT 3 (7 October 2021)
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.