Wakilii

Cementers Uganda Limited v National Social Security Fund [2026] UGPPDPAAT 3

Tribunal · 2026 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for being filed outside the statutory time limit

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 the application was incompetent and struck it out for being filed outside the mandatory ten-day statutory period prescribed under section 115(2)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The Tribunal found that the Accounting Officer's decision was validly communicated by email on 31 December 2025, and that the Applicant's filing on 22 January 2026 was time-barred. The Tribunal affirmed that statutory procurement timelines are mandatory and incapable of extension, and that non-compliance deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed outside the statutory time limit

Facts

The National Social Security Fund initiated a procurement process for a residential construction project in Magere, Wakiso District. Cementers Uganda Limited submitted a bid which was declared unsuccessful on 16 December 2025 on grounds that its Bid Submission Sheet erroneously referred to ITB 19.1 instead of ITB 20.1 for bid validity, and that it allegedly failed to submit Codes of Conduct for proposed personnel. The Applicant lodged an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on 27 December 2025 electronically and 29 December 2025 physically. The Respondent asserted it communicated its decision electronically on 31 December 2025. The Applicant denied receiving the decision and filed an application before the Tribunal on 22 January 2026, seeking review of the procurement decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the application before the Tribunal is competent?
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer of the Respondent erred in failure to respond to a complaint lodged by the Applicant?
  3. Whether the Respondent deviated from the evaluation criteria by disqualifying the Applicant at two distinct stages of evaluation?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in disqualifying the Applicant's bid on the basis of a minor error relating to bid validity?
  5. Whether the Respondent erred in disqualifying the Applicant's bid on the basis that the Bidder did not submit the Code of Conduct of each of the proposed personnel?
  6. Whether there are available remedies to the Parties?

Orders

  • The Application is hereby struck out.
  • The suspension order dated January 23rd, 2026, is hereby vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Nature
The timelines prescribed under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act for filing applications before the Appeals Tribunal are mandatory and incapable of extension, and non-compliance with these statutory timelines deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.
Service of Documents — Electronic Communication — Validity
Under section 131 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and sections 4, 5, and 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act, emails are legally recognised as valid data messages and effective means of communication, and service by email is effected when the message leaves the sender's system and is successfully delivered to the recipient's mail server, not when it is actually read by the recipient.
Service of Documents — Electronic Communication — Burden of Receipt
Where an email is correctly addressed and successfully delivered to the recipient's mail server without bounce-back or delivery failure, any subsequent failure to access, retrieve, or notice the email due to spam filtering, internal routing rules, or system configuration lies wholly within the recipient's domain and cannot invalidate proper service.
Computation of Time — Public Holidays — Exclusion
In computing statutory time limits, days declared as public holidays by the President are excluded pursuant to section 2(2) of the Public Holidays Act and the relevant procedural regulations, and where the final day for filing falls on a day when the Tribunal offices are closed, the application may be validly filed on the next working day.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (8)

  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 All ER 493
  • Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas Shipping Ltd [2006] 1 Lloyd's Rep 537
  • Hesse v Senyonga (Civil Suit No. 612 of 2014)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Geo Jet Placements Ltd v Mbarara City (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 45 of 2025)
  • Arapai Market Traders and Vendors Association Ltd v Serere District Local Government (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 43 of 2025)
  • Multiplex Ltd v Masaka City (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 15 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cementers Uganda Limited v National Social Security Fund 2026 UGPPDPAAT 3 (9 February 2026)
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.