Wakilii

China Railway No3 Engineering Company Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority [2026] UGPPDPAAT 1

Tribunal · 2026 Application Dismissed 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 dismissed; procurement process may proceed

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 dismissed the application challenging the disqualification of China Railway No.3 Engineering Co. Ltd from two road construction procurement lots. The Tribunal held that while the Accounting Officer's guidance on payment of administrative review fees was deficient and the decision was communicated outside the statutory 10-day period, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the substantive complaint. On the merits, the Tribunal found that the disqualification was lawful: the Applicant submitted unsigned CVs that were subsequently disowned by the proposed personnel, constituting misrepresentation; submitted insufficient evidence of ESHS management experience; failed to demonstrate capacity for night works; and proposed a Drainage Engineer without a valid practicing licence. The evaluation was conducted within the Evaluation Committee's statutory discretion and in accordance with the bidding documents.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement process may proceed

Facts

Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) initiated procurement for upgrading and reconstruction of urban roads under the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area-Urban Development Program funded by the World Bank. The procurement comprised two lots: Lot 2 (Bombo Road 2, Wandegeya-Bwaise section) and Lot 3 (Yusuf Lule Road and Binaisa Road). China Railway No.3 Engineering Co. Ltd (the Applicant) submitted bids for both lots. Following evaluation, KCCA issued Notices of Best Evaluated Bidder on November 25, 2025, naming other bidders as successful. The Applicant was disqualified at the detailed technical evaluation stage for multiple reasons including: unsigned CVs for key personnel that were subsequently disowned during due diligence; insufficient ESHS information; omission of night works provisions in the method statement; and absence of a valid practicing licence for the proposed Drainage and Structures Engineer. The Applicant lodged a complaint with KCCA's Accounting Officer on December 5, 2025. KCCA advised payment of administrative review fees through the URA portal by December 9, 2025. The Applicant encountered difficulties generating a payment slip as KCCA did not appear on the URA portal. The Applicant eventually paid on December 11, 2025 but only communicated proof of payment on December 18, 2025. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on December 16, 2025 for non-payment of fees. The Applicant filed this application before the Tribunal on December 24, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer properly guided the Applicant on payment of the prescribed administrative review fees?
  2. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer's decision was made and communicated within the statutory timeframe?
  3. Whether the conduct, language, and choice of words used by the Respondent's representative met the standards of courtesy and professionalism required of public servants?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it disqualified the Applicant's Bids in Lots 2 and 3?
  5. Whether the Best Evaluated Bidders in Lots 2 and 3 were responsive to the requirements of the bidding documents?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated December 24, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Review — Guidance on Payment of Fees — Duty of Accounting Officer
An Accounting Officer's duty to provide guidance on payment of administrative review fees requires useful and accurate advice aimed at enabling a complainant to pay the fees. Purported guidance that is perfunctory, incomplete, or misleading does not satisfy this duty. Where an Accounting Officer directs payment through a system that does not list the entity, and fails to provide assistance when the difficulty is communicated, the guidance is deficient.
Administrative Review — Statutory Timelines — Effect of Late Decision
Under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision on an administrative review complaint within ten days of receiving it. A decision made and communicated outside this statutory deadline is a nullity and has no legal effect. However, under section 106(8), if an Accounting Officer does not make and communicate a decision within ten days, the bidder may apply directly to the Tribunal, which then gains jurisdiction under section 115(1)(a).
Procurement — Evaluation — Due Diligence on Personnel
Under regulation 26 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Procuring and Disposing Entities) Regulations 2023, a procuring entity may undertake due diligence on a bid at any time from commencement of evaluation to before contract signing. Due diligence may cover any area of the bid that requires verification. Verifying whether personnel declaration forms were actually signed by the proposed personnel is directly linked to evaluation criteria and not extraneous. Where due diligence confirms that proposed personnel denied authorising submission of their CVs, this establishes misrepresentation and non-responsiveness.
Procurement — Evaluation — ESHS Requirements — Substance Over Form
Where bidding documents require demonstration of specific experience with environmental and social safeguards management, it is not sufficient to merely state that there were aspects of ESHS management in previous projects. The bidder must demonstrate actual implementation of ESHS management plans in previous projects. An Evaluation Committee's assessment that submitted evidence is generic and not project-specific is a permissible exercise of statutory discretion where anchored in the bidding document requirements.
Procurement — Evaluation — Material Deviations — Practicing Licence
Under regulation 6 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023, an Evaluation Committee may request clarification or submission of additional documents only where there is a non-conformity or omission that is not a material deviation. Where a proposed key personnel has disowned the use of his CV, it would be futile to request submission of his practicing licence. The absence of a valid practicing licence for key personnel required by the bidding document is a material deviation that cannot be cured by post-submission clarification.
Judicial Review — Standard of Review — Tribunal's Role
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal is a merits review body with wide powers to set aside a procuring entity's decision and substitute its own. However, the Tribunal's role is not to replace the procurement entities but to assess whether processes and decisions adhere to the law. The Tribunal must evaluate whether relevant rules and bidding documents were followed, whether the factual basis is correct, and whether there is clear error. Without such defects, the Tribunal should not overturn a decision merely because it disagrees with the procuring entity.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (12)

  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Application No. 17 of 2021)
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Ltd v Mwesigwa (Miscellaneous Application 2012/477)
  • VCON Construction (U) Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Mbarara University of Science and Technology v PPDA and Steam Investments Limited (Application No. 10 of 2020)
  • Civil Appeal 39 of 2020
  • Muwanga v Kyeyune (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2001)
  • Gibb (Pty) Limited in joint venture with Acmirs Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport & Standard Gauge Railways Project (Application No. 32 of 2025)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Globe World Engineering (U) Ltd v Mbale City Council (Application No. 21 of 2021)
  • Ama Municipal Council v Ama United Transporters' SACCO (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
  • Xinjiang Power Transmission and Transformation Limited Company and Beijing Shine Technology Company Limited Consortium v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 37 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

China Railway No3 Engineering Company Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority 2026 UGPPDPAAT 1 (13 January 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.