Wakilii

Bank of Uganda v Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (Civil Appeal No.018 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 29 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal decision dismissing the Bank of Uganda's challenge to PPDA's administrative review finding
Decision
Appeal allowed. PPDA Appeals Tribunal decision and PPDA administrative review decision both set aside. Bank of Uganda free to proceed with the SIEMS procurement.

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 High Court held that the Bank of Uganda, when exercising its core constitutional and statutory functions under Section 4 of the Bank of Uganda Act, is exempt from PPDA jurisdiction under Section 3(h) of the PPDA Act. The SIEMS procurement, being a security system protecting the Bank's online network through which it executes core functions as banker to government and clearing house, falls within the exempt category. PPDA has no residual advisory power over exempt procurements. The 2017 Manual did not require further accreditation after the 2015 accreditation.

Outcome

Appeal allowed. PPDA Appeals Tribunal decision and PPDA administrative review decision both set aside. Bank of Uganda free to proceed with the SIEMS procurement.

Facts

On 12 July 2019, Bank of Uganda invited bids for supply of a Security Information and Event Management Solution (SIEMS) to provide real-time threat detection and automated response across its computing network, which hosts critical banking applications, payment systems, e-government transactions, and clearing house functions. Mantra Technologies Ltd in joint venture with Infigo IS D.O.O. was unsuccessful. After internal administrative review, the unsuccessful bidder applied to PPDA for administrative review. PPDA found that the procurement was conducted under the Bank of Uganda Procurement Manual 2017, which had never been accredited by PPDA, and that the SIEMS procurement did not fall under the Section 4 Bank of Uganda Act exemption. PPDA declared the procurement null and void and instructed the Bank to suspend it. The Bank appealed to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 6 February 2020. The Bank then appealed to the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the PPDA Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction over procurement activities conducted by the Bank of Uganda in exercise of its functions specified in Section 4 of the Bank of Uganda Act.
  2. Whether the procurement of a Security Information and Event Management Solution (SIEMS) falls within the exempt functions specified in Section 4 of the Bank of Uganda Act.
  3. Whether the Bank of Uganda's 2017 Procurement Manual required accreditation by PPDA for procurements exempt under Section 3(h) of the PPDA Act.
  4. Whether the appeal was filed within time.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Decision of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal set aside.
  • Decision and orders of the respondent in its letter of 10 January 2020 set aside.
  • Respondent's instruction to appellant to suspend any further actions on the procurement process set aside.
  • Each party to bear its own costs here and in the tribunal.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Exemptions from Regulatory Jurisdiction
Where statute expressly exempts an entity from regulatory jurisdiction when exercising specified core functions, the regulator has no residual advisory or supervisory power over those exempt activities, and any interpretation conferring such residual power would contravene the plain meaning of the exemption provision.
Constitutional Law — Central Bank Independence — Constitutional Protection from Direction and Control
Article 162(2) of the Constitution provides that in performing its functions, the Bank of Uganda shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. This constitutional independence insulates the Bank from commands or supervision by any regulatory authority when exercising core constitutional functions, including procurement decisions related to those functions.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Exemptions for Central Banking Functions
Section 3(h) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act 2003 defines Bank of Uganda as a procuring and disposing entity except in exercise of the functions specified in Section 4 of the Bank of Uganda Act. Procurement of systems that protect the online network through which the Bank executes core functions such as acting as banker to government and clearing house for financial institutions falls within the exempt category.
Administrative Law — Procedural Fairness — Right to be Heard
Where parties to proceedings before an administrative tribunal agree to abandon certain issues for determination, and the tribunal proceeds to make findings on an abandoned issue without hearing the parties or receiving evidence on it, such finding is made in contravention of the right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution and cannot stand.
Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule — Clear and Unambiguous Language
The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is that where words are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their primary, plain, ordinary and natural meaning. A court cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation against the will expressed in the enactment itself, nor place an unnatural interpretation on the language used by the legislature to impute an intention not inferable from that language.
Administrative Law — Appeals — Time Limits and Compliance with Statutory Requirements
An appeal is a creature of statute, and a party who seeks to exercise the right of appeal must strictly comply with the conditions prescribed by statute. Where Section 91M of the PPDA Act requires an appeal to be lodged by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of being notified of the tribunal's decision, filing the notice within that period satisfies the statutory requirement.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (7)

  • Hamam Singh Bhogal T/a Hamam Singh & Co v Jadva Karsan (1953) 20 EACA 17
  • Emmanuel Tumusiime v Perusi Namagembe (High Court Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2013)
  • M Buwule v Asuman Mugenyi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2019)
  • Galleria in Africa v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2017)
  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 01 of 2015)
  • Smart Protus Magara and Others v Financial Intelligence Authority (Magistrate's Court Miscellaneous Application No. 138 of 2018)
  • Executive Director, National Environment Management Authority v Solid State Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bank of Uganda v Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (Civil Appeal No.018 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 29 (25 January 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.