Wakilii

C & S Upholstery Limited v Bank of Uganda (Civil Suit 407 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 32 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of statutory duty arising from public procurement process
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

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 a public procuring entity breaches its statutory duty of fairness and transparency under the PPDA Act when it rejects a bidder's submission based on unsubstantiated allegations of forgery without conducting proper due diligence or awaiting clearance from the PPDA Authority. The defendant's premature disqualification of the plaintiff, later found baseless by the PPDA, constituted actionable breach of statutory duty entitling the plaintiff to damages.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs awarded

Facts

In May 2019, the defendant Bank of Uganda invited bids for carpet replacement at its headquarters. The plaintiff C & S Upholstery Limited submitted a bid including a Manufacturer's Authorization from Windsor International Limited. The defendant sought confirmation of the plaintiff's authorization relationship with Shaw Contract Group and Windsor International. Despite written assurances, the defendant's evaluation committee recommended eliminating the plaintiff based on an alleged forged Manufacturer's Authorization Form and reported the plaintiff to the PPDA Authority for investigation. The PPDA conducted a hearing and investigation, finding no merit in the defendant's allegations and confirming that Windsor International's authorization was valid and that there was no breach of ethical conduct by the plaintiff. The PPDA concluded the defendant and its officers lacked reasonable basis to reject the plaintiff's bid or refer the plaintiff for disciplinary action. The plaintiff claimed the defendant's actions damaged their reputation and caused financial losses, estimating losses of over UGX 5 billion from lost earnings and UGX 2 billion from rejected bids.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is barred in law.
  2. Whether the Defendant owed the Plaintiff a statutory duty of fairness and transparency.
  3. Whether the Defendant breached that statutory duty.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The plaintiff is awarded UGX 200,000,000 as general damages for lost earnings due to breach of statutory duty.
  • The award shall carry interest at 15% per annum from the date of judgment.
  • The plaintiff is awarded costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Breach of Statutory Duty — Elements Required for Cause of Action
To establish a cause of action for breach of statutory duty in public procurement, a plaintiff must show: (a) the defendant is under a statutory duty; (b) the defendant breached the statutory duty; (c) the breach caused the damage suffered by the plaintiff; and (d) the damage is within the scope of protection of the statute.
Public Procurement — Statutory Duty of Fairness and Transparency — PPDA Act
Under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, public procurement must be conducted in accordance with principles of non-discrimination, transparency, accountability, fairness, maximization of competition, and value for money. A procuring entity breaches this statutory duty when it disqualifies a bidder without carrying out thorough due diligence or awaiting clearance from the PPDA Authority.
Public Procurement — Due Diligence — Allegations of Forgery
A procuring entity's duty to exercise due diligence and flag suspected procurement misconduct does not authorise it to act rashly or declare a bidder's documentation to be forged without proper investigation. Where a procuring entity eliminates a bidder from a procurement process based on unproven allegations of forgery, it breaches its statutory duty of fairness and transparency.
Breach of Statutory Duty — Alternative Remedies — Exhaustion of Administrative Procedures
A suit for breach of statutory duty of fairness and transparency in public procurement is not barred merely because the plaintiff did not first exhaust administrative review remedies available under the PPDA Act. An individual may seek compensation against public bodies for harm caused by wrongful acts constituting a recognisable tort or breach of statutory duty.
Misfeasance in Public Office — Breach of Statutory Duty — Nature of Tort
Breach of statutory duty is an independent and separate cause of action premised on a defendant's breach of a duty imposed by statute. It is a form of misfeasance in public office involving failure to perform a duty imposed by law. An individual must establish that the unlawful action constitutes a recognisable tort; the fact that an act is ultra vires does not of itself entitle an individual to compensation.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) [1982] AC 173
  • David Melvin Aryemu Ochieng v UMEME Ltd (HCCS No. 15 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

C & S Upholstery Limited v Bank of Uganda (Civil Suit 407 of 2020) [2025] UGHCCD 32 (27 February 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.