Wakilii

Aisino Corporation v Uganda Revenue Authority [2025] UGPPDPAAT 59

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Accounting Officer's decision dismissing administrative review complaint concerning procurement evaluation
Decision
Application dismissed and procurement process allowed to proceed

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 dismissed the application challenging the re-evaluation of a procurement process for a tax administration system. The Tribunal held that the Respondent lawfully reconstituted the evaluation committee and that no evidence of bias or conflict of interest was established. The Respondent properly fulfilled its statutory obligation to provide reasons for the Applicant's disqualification without disclosing competing bidders' detailed scores, consistent with confidentiality principles. The proof-of-concept demonstration was conducted in accordance with the RFP, and the Applicant was afforded sufficient time. The Evaluation Committee properly exercised its discretion in scoring the Applicant's proposal and finding it non-responsive to the Terms of Reference.

Outcome

Application dismissed and procurement process allowed to proceed

Facts

Uganda Revenue Authority initiated procurement for consultancy services to design, develop, and maintain an electronic tax administration system. Six firms submitted bids. After initial technical evaluation, Aisino Corporation was disqualified. Following an administrative review complaint dismissed as time-barred, Aisino filed Application No. 31 of 2025 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal struck out that application but partially upheld a related application (No. 30 of 2025), setting aside the initial evaluation and directing re-evaluation. During re-evaluation conducted in October 2025, Aisino passed the preliminary stage but scored 60.11% at the detailed technical stage, below the minimum qualifying score, and was disqualified. lUNetworks LLC and Omni Software Ltd Joint Venture was declared Best Evaluated Bidder with a score of 94.74%. After a debrief on 4 November 2025, Aisino lodged another administrative review complaint, which was dismissed on 15 November 2025. Aisino then filed Application No. 44 of 2025 challenging the re-evaluation process.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent erred in holding that there was no procedural irregularities and lack of independence in the re-evaluation committee?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred by refusing to disclose the justification/reasons why a bidder who previously struggled to meet the required score under the same criteria exceeded the required score by a big margin?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred by holding that it complied with the Tribunal's orders whereas not?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in upholding the method of proof-of-concept demonstration and the unreasonable time given to the Applicant?
  5. Whether the Respondent erred in holding that the Applicant's submission was not technically responsive nor in conformity to the Terms of Reference/Statement of Requirements?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated November 27, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Evaluation Committee Composition — Re-appointment of Previous Members
In the absence of a restraining order, the Accounting Officer acting through the Procurement and Disposal Unit may lawfully recommend a member of an original evaluation committee for reappointment to a newly constituted committee tasked with re-evaluation, provided conflicts of interest are declared.
Public Procurement — Bias and Conflict of Interest — Burden of Proof
An applicant challenging a procurement decision on grounds of bias or conflict of interest bears the burden of presenting cogent, credible evidence demonstrating actual bias or a real likelihood of bias that is clear and manifest; mere suspicion or allegation arising from prior committee membership is insufficient.
Public Procurement — Confidentiality — Disclosure of Competing Bidders' Scores
A procuring entity is prohibited from sharing information related to the examination, clarification, evaluation, or comparison of bids with bidders or unauthorized persons before the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice is issued; the entity's statutory obligation is limited to providing a rejected bidder with reasons for its own disqualification, not detailed scoring information of competing bidders.
Public Procurement — Re-evaluation — Independence of Evaluation Committees
An evaluation committee tasked with re-evaluating bids following a tribunal order setting aside an earlier evaluation is not required to adopt the conclusions of the initial evaluation committee and may lawfully reach different conclusions when applying the same criteria to the same bids.
Public Procurement — Proof of Concept Demonstrations — Procedural Fairness
Where a Request for Proposals expressly requires a proof-of-concept demonstration and allocates equal time to all bidders, a bidder who participates without objection and utilizes only part of the allocated time cannot subsequently claim procedural unfairness or insufficient time, and is estopped from challenging the process under section 114 of the Evidence Act.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Discretion — Tribunal's Review Authority
The Tribunal's role in reviewing procurement decisions is not to substitute its judgment for that of a properly constituted evaluation committee but to determine whether the processes and decisions comply with the law, including whether the Request for Proposals and relevant rules were followed and whether the factual basis for decisions is sound; in the absence of clear error or deviation from the RFP criteria, the Tribunal will not overturn a procurement decision.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (16)

  • Dentons Advocates v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 39 of 2025)
  • Yoya Technologies Limited, Eviden Information Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd and Percent Technology Group Co. Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Application No. 30 of 2025)
  • JB United Civil Engineering and Building Contractors Limited v Adjumani District Local Government (Application No. 7 of 2023)
  • MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City Council (Application No. 37 of 2024)
  • Rhino Engineering Works Limited v Otuke District Local Government (Application No. 24 of 2024)
  • Consortium of EAA Company Ltd and East Africa Auto Technical Testing v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Application No. 31 of 2023)
  • Auto Terminal Japan Limited, Pal Auto Garage Ltd, Africa Automotive Analysis Ltd JV (Application No. 32 of 2023)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 18 of 2021)
  • Energo (U) Co. Ltd v Rubaramira (Civil Appeal No. 0183 of 2013)
  • Kakooza Matooke Traders v Mbarara City (Application No. 34 of 2025)
  • GIBB (Pty) Limited in Joint Venture with ACMIRS Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport & Standard Gauge Railways Project (Application No. 32 of 2025)
  • Egis Road Operations SA v Uganda National Roads Authority and China Communications Construction Company Ltd & CCCC Investment Company Ltd Consortium (Application No. 11 of 2020)
  • Doshnut Uganda Ltd v Ministry of Water & Environment (Application No. 47 of 2024)
  • Technology Associates Limited in Consortium with Comviva Technology Limited v Post Bank Uganda Limited
  • Eyere Company SMC Ltd v Arua City Council
  • Marvin Baryaruha v Attorney General

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Aisino Corporation v Uganda Revenue Authority 2025 UGPPDPAAT 59 (16 December 2025)
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.