Wakilii

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

Tribunal · [2021] UGPPDPAAT 2 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
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 with cogent evidence as required to invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 89(9) of the PPDA Act. Further, the application was filed one day out of time, on 21 September 2021 instead of 20 September 2021, thereby extinguishing the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Outcome

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

Facts

Jinja City Council advertised a procurement for revenue collection services. After evaluation, Rojoke Photo Lab & Art Co. Ltd was ranked first and the applicant second. The applicant challenged this in Application No. 12 of 2021, which the Tribunal allowed in part, finding Rojoke ineligible and directing re-evaluation. Upon re-evaluation by a new committee, Unique Commodity Services Limited was ranked first and the applicant was disqualified for non-responsiveness on experience and audited accounts requirements. The applicant then filed this second application alleging lack of impartiality by the respondent and challenging the re-evaluation process.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application before the Tribunal is competent
  2. Whether the Applicant had locus standi to file the Application
  3. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Application
  4. Whether the Applicant proved lack of impartiality by the Respondent
  5. Whether the Application was filed within the statutory time limit

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Locus Standi — Burden of Proof
A tribunal must inquire into the existence of facts to determine whether it has jurisdiction, as jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given. The burden lies on the applicant to prove locus standi and the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Bias and Impartiality — Standard of Proof
To successfully challenge administrative action on grounds of bias or lack of impartiality, an applicant must prove reasonable suspicion of bias or real likelihood of bias with cogent and reasonable evidence. Mere vague suspicion or fanciful allegations without evidence cannot constitute proof of bias.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Jurisdiction of PPDA Tribunal
The PPDA Tribunal can only exercise jurisdiction in four instances: where the Accounting Officer fails to make or communicate a decision within the specified period; where a bidder is dissatisfied with the Accounting Officer's decision; where the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest; or where the matter cannot be handled impartially by the procuring entity. Failure to prove any of these grounds deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance
Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with. Where an application is filed out of time, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is extinguished. There is no enabling provision within the PPDA Act that accords the Tribunal power to enlarge or extend time set under the law.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Time Limits for Applications
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 when the omission or breach is alleged to have taken place. Where the tenth day falls on a Sunday, it is excluded and the next working day becomes the deadline.

Legislation cited (8)

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 v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian S v 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 Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No 18 of 2021) 2021 UGPPDPAAT 2 (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.