Wakilii

Acacia Place Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and Another (Application No 10 of 2020)

Tribunal · [2021] UGPPDPAAT 1 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of PPDA Authority decision rejecting administrative review of Electoral Commission procurement process
Decision
Application dismissed; Electoral Commission directed to proceed with new procurement process

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

Held that once bid validity and bid security expire without extension, the procurement process comes to an end. The applicant's bid in the 2017-2018 procurement expired on 30 June 2018, terminating that process. The Electoral Commission was entitled to initiate a new procurement in 2020-2021 based on updated requirements. Directives from PPDA relating to the expired procurement were not binding on the new process. The new procurement using open domestic bidding complied with procurement principles. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; Electoral Commission directed to proceed with new procurement process

Facts

Acacia Place Ltd was declared best evaluated bidder in Electoral Commission's 2017-2018 procurement for office premises. The bid validity and bid security expired on 30 June 2018 without contract execution due to lack of funding. In June 2021, Electoral Commission initiated a new procurement for office premises with revised specifications. Acacia Place purchased bidding documents but did not submit a bid, instead seeking administrative review claiming the new procurement was unlawful and that it was entitled to a contract under the expired 2017-2018 process. PPDA rejected the administrative review. Acacia Place appealed to the Tribunal.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent erred in law and fact when it decided that the accounting officer carried out an investigation as required by the law.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent erred in law and fact when it decided that there is no existing procurement process vide Procurement Reference Number EC/SUPLS/2017-2018/00001 because the Applicant's bid expired.
  3. Whether the 1st Respondent erred in law and fact when it decided that there is no valid bid of the Applicant upon which a contract could be based.
  4. Whether the 1st Respondent erred in law and fact when it decided that the directive issued by the Authority in the procurement referenced EC/SUPLS/2017-2018/00001 was not binding on the procurement referenced EC/SUPLS/2020-2021/01739.
  5. Whether the 1st Respondent erred in law and fact when it decided that the new procurement process is not contrary to the presidential directive dated 11th July 2019.
  6. Whether the 1st Respondent erred in law and fact when it failed to find that the new procurement process is contrary to the basic principles of public procurement.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Administrative review decision of the Authority affirmed and upheld.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 22 July 2021 vacated.
  • 2nd Respondent directed to resume and proceed with procurement process in Procurement Ref No. EC/SUPLS/2020-2021/01739 to its logical conclusion.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Effect of Expiry
Once bid validity and bid security expire without extension, the procurement process comes to an end and no contract can be executed based on the expired bid.
Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Definition of Bidder
A person who purchases and is issued with solicitation documents for a procurement falls within the definition of a bidder under the PPDA Act and has locus to seek administrative review, even if they do not ultimately submit a bid.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Investigation Requirements
There is no requirement for an Accounting Officer to produce a formal investigation report when conducting administrative review under the PPDA Act, provided a written decision with reasons is issued within the statutory timeframe.
Public Procurement — Separate Procurement Processes — Binding Effect of Prior Directives
Where a procurement process has ended due to expiry of bid validity, a subsequent procurement for the same subject matter is a separate and distinct process, and directives issued in relation to the expired procurement are not binding on the new process.
Public Procurement — Legitimate Expectation — Inapplicability
The doctrine of legitimate expectation must be applied within the confines of the law and does not entitle a bidder to a contract where the bid validity has expired and the procurement process has ended.
Public Procurement — Revised Specifications — Procuring Entity's Discretion
A procuring entity initiating a new procurement after expiry of a previous process is entitled to revise specifications based on updated requirements, and use of open domestic bidding promotes rather than contravenes procurement principles.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (14)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTINE MARY TEBAJJUKIRA VS. MARY NAMATOVU (1992 - 1993) HCB 85
  • PPDA v Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors Co-operative Society Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2016)
  • Acacia Place Ltd v Zhang Hao and Liu Ming Shu, PPDA and EC (Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2018)
  • GALLERIA IN AFRICA LTD V UGANDA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD [2018] UGSC 19
  • Cuberoot Ltd v Trinity College Nabbingo and PPDA (Application No. 3 of 2020)
  • MK CREDITORS LTD V OWORA (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION-2015/143) [2017] UGCOMMC 10
  • Amrit Goval v Harichand Goval and 3 Others (Civil Application No. 109 of 2009)
  • Kampala Financial Services Ltd v Muwanea and Another (HCCS No. 228 of 2013)
  • BANCO ARABE ESPANOL V BANK OF UGANDA [1999] UGSC 1
  • Kazini Fredric v PPDA (PAT Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Twed Property Development Limited v PPDA (PAT Application No. 9 of 2015)
  • KATABAAZI V UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE-2017/268) [2018] UGHCCD 96
  • James Wendi v PPDA (PAT Application No. 1 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Acacia Place Ltd v Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority and Another (Application No 10 of 2020) 2021 UGPPDPAAT 1 (10 August 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.