Wakilii

Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters Sacco (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0025 OF 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 171 · 2017 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from a decision of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal which had set aside the decision of the PPDA Authority and ordered re-evaluation of bids
Decision
Decision of PPDA Authority restored; appellant's award of contract to Taxi Operators Society upheld

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: The appeal was allowed. The PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in applying the February 2017 policy guideline retrospectively to disqualify a bidder whose previous operations under the old policy were lawful. The guideline could only apply prospectively. The appellant correctly rejected the respondent's bid for non-compliance with mandatory experience requirements in the tender documents. The Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, breaching statutory and natural justice obligations. The interim revenue collection arrangement was not unreasonable and did not prejudice the review outcome. The costs award was improper as the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard.

Outcome

Decision of PPDA Authority restored; appellant's award of contract to Taxi Operators Society upheld

Facts

Arua Municipal Council invited bids for management and collection of revenue from Arua Taxi Park for July 2017 to June 2018 using selective bidding. Two bids were received: one from Taxi Operators Society at shs. 18,767,900 per month and another from Transport Operators Society (respondent) at shs. 18,875,900 per month. The Evaluation Committee disqualified the respondent at technical evaluation stage for lack of required experience and recommended Taxi Operators Society, which had managed the park for three consecutive years. The respondent applied for administrative review, arguing the appellant violated new policy guidelines requiring rotation after two years and that it had been unfairly disqualified despite submitting experience documents. The Chief Administrative Officer dismissed the application. The PPDA Authority also dismissed the application on external review. The PPDA Appeals Tribunal allowed the respondent's application and ordered re-evaluation, directing refund of fees and disbanding interim arrangements. The appellant then appealed to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in setting aside the decision of the PPDA Authority.
  2. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in deciding that Arua Municipal Council failed to implement the government policy on management of public service vehicle parking areas dated 13th February 2017.
  3. Whether the policy guideline limiting taxi park operators to a maximum of two years could be applied retrospectively to disqualify a bidder who had operated the park for three consecutive years under the previous policy.
  4. Whether the appellant correctly evaluated and disqualified the respondent's bid for lack of demonstrated experience in managing taxi parks.
  5. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in deciding that the interim arrangement by the appellant to collect revenue should be disbanded.
  6. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal erred in awarding costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Summary judgment of the PPDA Appeals Tribunal dated 12th September 2017 and all findings, orders and directions therein set aside.
  • Decision of the PPDA dated 7th August 2017 and all orders and directions contained therein restored.
  • Order for refund of administrative review fees set aside.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Retrospective Application of Policy — Vested Rights — Government Policy on Management of Public Service Vehicle Parking Areas
A government policy will not be construed as having retrospective effect to the extent that it would divest persons of accrued or vested rights. A policy is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing policy, creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in regard to events already past. A policy guideline limiting taxi park operators to a maximum period of two years, which came into effect on 1st March 2017, could not be applied retrospectively to disqualify a bidder whose previous operations under the earlier unrestricted policy were lawful, as this would attach a new disability to past lawful activities.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Selective Bidding — Technical Evaluation — Experience Requirements
In selective bidding, while inclusion of a bidder on the shortlist is based on the expectation of capacity to satisfy requirements, the onus remains on the bidder to submit documents proving the assumed experience when submitting the bid. Where a claim is made to possess required experience but this experience is not substantiated in the bid, the bid does not provide the type and level of evidence required in the solicitation and may properly be found non-responsive. Prescribed evaluation criteria cannot be changed or waived during the evaluation process, and the same criteria must be applied to each tender.
Administrative Law — Merits Review — PPDA Appeals Tribunal — Duty to Give Reasons
The PPDA Appeals Tribunal has a statutory duty to give reasons for its decisions, including findings on material questions of fact and reference to the evidence on which those findings were based. A summary decision must at minimum provide an outline of the story giving rise to the application, a summary of basic factual conclusions, and a statement of reasons for the conclusion. Failure to provide adequate reasons constitutes an error of law that will result in the decision being set aside, particularly where the failure raises substantial doubt as to whether the decision was based on relevant grounds and was otherwise free from flaw.
Administrative Law — Merits Review — Scope of Review — Re-hearing versus De Novo Review
In conducting a merits review by way of re-hearing rather than de novo, the PPDA Appeals Tribunal's task is to search for errors in the original decision on the basis of material before the original decision-maker. If there is no error, the Tribunal cannot alter the original decision even if it believes a better decision could have been made. The Tribunal's remedial powers are activated only if the decision under review was not, in the Tribunal's opinion, the correct or preferable one on the material before it. The Tribunal should not exercise its substitution power where the original decision was within the range of lawful and reasonable decisions available.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Costs Awards — Right to be Heard
The rules of natural justice require that before the PPDA Appeals Tribunal awards costs against a party, that party must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the matter. Parties before the Tribunal ought prima facie to bear their own costs unless in particular instances the Tribunal, in proper exercise of discretion, considers otherwise having regard to factors such as whether a party conducted the proceeding in a way that unnecessarily disadvantaged another party. A costs award made without hearing the affected party and without reasons is an improper exercise of discretion.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (19)

  • Katumba Byaruhanga v Edward Kyewalabye Musoke (1999) KALR 621
  • Lion v. Firebuy Limited [2007] All ER (D) 177
  • Letting International v. Newham London Borough Council [2008] EWHC 1583 (QB)
  • PPDA v Arua Kubala (High Court Appeal No. 005 of 2016)
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Were (Miscellaneous Application No. 604 of 2013)
  • Drake v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577; 2 ALD 60
  • Director of Public Works and Another v. HO PO Sang and Others [1961] AC 901
  • Buttcon Ltd. v. Toronto Electric Commissioners, (2003) 65 O.R. (3d) 601 (Ont. S.C.J.)
  • SAG ELV Slovensko a.s and others v. Urad pre verejne obstaravanie, Case No. C- 599/10
  • Varney v. Hertfordshire County Council, 2011] EWCA Civ 708
  • Lion Apparel Systems Limited v. Firebuy Limited, [2007] EWHC 2179 (Ch)
  • Re Poyser and Mills Arbitration [1963] 1 All ER 612, [1964] 2 QB 467
  • R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Khan [1983] QB 790
  • Stefan v. General Medical Council [1999] 1 WLR 1293
  • Chigwell (Shepherds Bush) v. ASRA Greater London Housing Association Ltd [2012] EWHC 2746 (QB)
  • Halo Trust v. Secretary of State for International Development, [2011] EWHC 87
  • Bushell v. Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
  • Re Becker and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1977) 1 ALD 158
  • Re Lobo and Department of Immigration and Citizenship, [2011] AATA 705; 56 AAR 1; 124 ALD 238

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters Sacco (CIVIL APPEAL No. 0025 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 171 (14 December 2017)
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.