Wakilii

Achelis Uganda Limited v Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (Application 25 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 21 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out as time-barred

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 held that an application for administrative review of a procurement decision filed 13 days after the Accounting Officer's decision was time-barred under sections 89(7) and 91I(2)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, which require filing within 10 working days. Where World Bank procurement regulations prescribe a longer timeline for the Accounting Officer's response (15 business days), that timeline prevails over the domestic statute's 10-day period by virtue of section 4(1) of the Act. However, once the Accounting Officer issues a decision, the 10-day period for filing with the Tribunal begins immediately. The Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction to extend statutory time limits, and non-compliance is fatal to the proceedings.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred

Facts

The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development advertised a procurement for survey and mapping equipment under World Bank funding in November 2023. Eight bidders submitted bids. On April 28, 2023, Achelis Uganda Ltd was named best evaluated bidder for Lot 2 at UGX 2,530,007,635. Following a complaint by a citizen to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority, the Authority recommended re-evaluation. On April 11, 2024, after re-evaluation, the Ministry issued a notification of intention to award the contract to Pynet Technologies Ltd at UGX 5,056,367,400, disqualifying Achelis on technical grounds relating to GPS specifications. Achelis requested a debrief on April 12, 2024, received it on April 16, 2024, and filed an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on April 19, 2024. The Accounting Officer responded on April 22, 2024, advising Achelis to seek recourse to the Tribunal. Achelis also wrote to the Authority on April 23, 2024, seeking administrative review. The Authority advised Achelis to file with the Tribunal. Achelis filed the application with the Tribunal on May 13, 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is time barred?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred when it named Pynet Technologies Ltd as the best evaluated bidder?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated May 13, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Procurement Appeals — Statutory Time Limits — Computation of Time for Filing
Where World Bank procurement regulations prescribe a timeline of 15 business days for an Accounting Officer to review and respond to a procurement complaint, and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 prescribes 10 days, the World Bank timeline prevails by virtue of section 4(1) of the Act, which gives precedence to international agreements.
Administrative Law — Procurement Appeals — Statutory Time Limits — Commencement of Time for Appeal
The 10 working days within which an aggrieved bidder may file an application to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal begins to run from the day after the Accounting Officer communicates a decision on the administrative review complaint, regardless of whether that decision is substantive or procedural.
Administrative Law — Procurement Appeals — Jurisdiction — Effect of Non-Compliance with Statutory Time Limits
Timelines in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities. Non-compliance with statutory time limits is fatal to proceedings and extinguishes the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period of time laid down by statute.
Administrative Law — Procurement Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Authority — Advisory Role
Following the enactment of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Amendment) Act 2021, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate procurement-related complaints. Jurisdiction is vested in the Accounting Officer under section 89 of the Act, with appeals to the Tribunal under section 91I and final appeals to the High Court on points of law under section 91M. Recommendations of the Authority arising from an investigation after publication of a notice of best evaluated bidder are advisory only and cannot alter the outcome of a procurement process unless the complainant successfully applies for administrative review to the Accounting Officer or the Tribunal.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (7)

  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • APA Insurance Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 02 of 2022)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K Njuba & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2007)
  • JV AGT SPA & Zhucheng Dingcheng Machinery Co Ltd v Private Sector Foundation Uganda (Application No. 29 of 2022)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Achelis Uganda Limited v Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (Application 25 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 21 (31 May 2024)
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.