Wakilii

Beautiful Engineering amp Equipment Limited v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No 15 of 2021)

Tribunal · [2021] UGPPDPAAT 18 · 2021 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision disqualifying applicant's bid
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; procurement process to resume

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 it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application because the applicant failed to lodge a valid complaint with the Accounting Officer of the respondent entity as required by section 89 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended. The applicant's letter was addressed to the Manager of the Procurement and Disposal Unit, not the Accounting Officer, and no administrative review fees were paid. Without a valid complaint to the Accounting Officer, the Tribunal cannot exercise its jurisdiction. The application was struck out.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction; procurement process to resume

Facts

On 1 April 2021, Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited advertised a procurement for supply of transformer oil. Five bidders submitted bids by 28 April 2021. On 23 July 2021, the respondent published a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice indicating that Senah International Limited was the successful bidder and that Beautiful Engineering & Equipment Limited (the applicant) had failed at the preliminary evaluation stage for not satisfying commercial requirements. On 29 July 2021, the applicant wrote to the Manager of the Procurement and Disposal Unit (not the Accounting Officer) requesting reconsideration. The Manager responded disagreeing with the applicant's submissions. On 10 August 2021, the applicant wrote to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority requesting administrative review, but was advised on 13 August 2021 to lodge the application before the Tribunal in light of the 2021 amendments to the Act. The applicant filed the application before the Tribunal on 2 September 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant properly lodged a complaint with the Accounting Officer of the Respondent as required by section 89 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended.
  2. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Application in the absence of a valid complaint to the Accounting Officer.
  3. Whether the Applicant paid the requisite administrative review fees.
  4. Whether the Application was commenced within the prescribed time limits.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The Application is struck out.
  • The procurement process should resume and be concluded in accordance with the law.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated 2nd September 2021 is vacated.
  • Each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Jurisdiction of Appeals Tribunal — Requirement to Lodge Complaint with Accounting Officer
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal can only exercise jurisdiction where a bidder has first lodged a valid complaint with the Accounting Officer of the procuring entity as required by section 89 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended by Act 15 of 2021. A complaint addressed to the Manager of the Procurement and Disposal Unit does not satisfy this requirement.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Distinction Between Accounting Officer and Procurement Unit Manager
The office of the Accounting Officer and the Head of the Procurement and Disposal Unit are distinct offices with different powers and functions under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003. Only the Accounting Officer has the mandate to investigate complaints by providers under section 26(1)(h) and (i) of the Act.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Mandatory Compliance with Statutory Procedures
Provisions regulating public procurement and disposal of public assets are mandatory and not directory. Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements makes proceedings fatal. A procuring entity cannot move to another stage of the procurement process without fulfilling the first stage.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Court's Duty When Jurisdiction is Challenged
A question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court or tribunal seized of the matter is obliged to decide the issue immediately on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court or tribunal has no power to make one more step. Where a court or tribunal has no jurisdiction, there is no basis for continuation of proceedings.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Instances When Tribunal May Exercise Jurisdiction
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal can only exercise jurisdiction in four instances: (a) where an Accounting Officer does not make or communicate a decision within the prescribed period; (b) where a bidder is not satisfied with the Accounting Officer's decision; (c) where a bidder believes the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest; or (d) where a bidder believes the matter cannot be handled impartially by the procuring entity.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (6)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR 1
  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal 2017)
  • Hoima Taxi/Bus Owners and Drivers Saving and Credit Cooperative Society v PPDA (Application No. 5 of 2014)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Obon Infrastructure Development JV v PPDA & Mbarara City (Application No. 5 of 2021)
  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v PPDA & Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Application No. 4 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Beautiful Engineering amp Equipment Limited v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No 15 of 2021) 2021 UGPPDPAAT 18 (22 September 2021)
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.