Wakilii

B. J Consults Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 365 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 328 · 2024 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract and payment for clearing and forwarding services provided to the Ministry of Education and Sports
Decision
Suit dismissed with no order as to costs

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 there was no valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant because the procurement procedures mandated by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 were not followed. The Ministry of Education and Sports failed to comply with statutory requirements for bid solicitation, evaluation, contracts committee approval, and formal award. Non-compliance with the PPDA Act is fatal and renders the procurement invalid, regardless of whether services were rendered. The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply where public procurement law has been flouted. Suit dismissed.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The plaintiff was prequalified by the Ministry of Education and Sports to provide clearing and forwarding services for three financial years. The plaintiff cleared and delivered 19 shipments of medical and laboratory equipment to various universities under two contracts. The plaintiff presented invoices totalling UGX 1,031,710,855 to the Ministry, which refused payment. The plaintiff had obtained invoice discounting facilities from Bank of Africa and defaulted on loan obligations due to non-payment. The defendant admitted receiving services for 19 consignments but stated the plaintiff failed to clear 4 consignments which the Ministry cleared directly, incurring costs of UGX 112,752,120. Following reconciliation, the defendant admitted indebtedness of UGX 180,453,006 but contested the validity of the contract on grounds of non-compliance with public procurement law.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a valid contract between parties.
  2. Whether there was breach of contract.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Validity of Contract — Mandatory Compliance with PPDA Act
For a contract to be valid under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, three requirements must be met: there must be a provider and a procuring entity; the agreement must result from the application of appropriate and approved procurement procedures; and the agreement must be concluded pursuant to a bid award decision of a contracts committee or other appropriate authority.
Public Procurement — Procurement Procedures — Initiation, Solicitation, Evaluation, and Award
Procurement procedures under the PPDA Act include initiation of procurement, choice of procurement method, solicitation of bids, evaluation of bids, and award of contract. Every procurement must be initiated by an invitation to bid from the procuring entity, and for procurements other than micro-procurements, an evaluation of bids must be carried out. There must be evidence of contracts committee approval of procurement procedures and formal award.
Public Procurement — Non-Compliance — Fatal to Validity
The provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory, not directory. Non-compliance with the statutory procurement procedures is fatal and renders the procurement invalid. Procurement processes are sequential; one cannot move to another stage without fulfilling the requirements of the first. Breach of the provisions goes to the core of the Act and cannot be treated as a mere irregularity.
Unjust Enrichment — Inapplicability Where Procurement Law Flouted
The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply where public procurement has been carried out in breach of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The purpose of the Act is to protect public resources and ensure transparency, accountability, fairness, and value for money. Where procurement procedures have been blatantly flouted, a provider cannot recover for services rendered, even if the procuring entity has benefited.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (2)

  • Galleria in Africa v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2017)
  • Finishing Touches v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 144 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

B. J Consults Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit 365 of 2020) [2024] UGCommC 328 (14 October 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.