Chogm Tour Agents 2007 (U) Ltd v Masaka Municipal Council Local Government (Civil Appeal 7 of 2010)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On a second appeal in judicial review proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant, having merely picked bid forms after the procurement process had closed and submitted bids out of time, was not a 'bidder' under section 3 of the PPDA Act and had no legal right enforceable by judicial review. PPDA did not contravene the Act in entertaining a competing provider's complaint or in convening the meeting of 22 September 2008, since the Authority's day-to-day functions are lawfully exercised by its Executive Director and staff on the Board's behalf. Where a procuring entity itself sought and participated in PPDA's resolutions, it was bound to follow the resulting recommendations.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the lower courts' dismissal of the judicial review applications affirmed.

Facts

Two service providers, M/s Equator Touring Services Ltd and M/s Batata Ltd, held contracts to collect taxi park revenue for the respondent council for 2007/2008. A dispute arose over illegal transit stages, aggravated by the personal interest of the Mayor and executive committee members. Equator complained to the Town Clerk and then to PPDA, which advised on designated parks and warned against unilateral contract awards. A consent order separately extended Batata's contract. After further complaints, PPDA convened a meeting on 22 September 2008 attended by the Town Clerk, contract committee officials and Equator, which halted the ongoing procurement and recommended extending Equator's contract to 30 August 2009. The appellant picked bid forms on 4 September 2008 and submitted its bid on 29 September 2008, after the declared closing date of 19 September 2008 and after the process had been halted. The appellant filed two judicial review applications (prohibition, mandamus and certiorari), which were consolidated, dismissed by the High Court, and dismissed again by the Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent and PPDA contravened the procurement law by entertaining a competing service provider's complaint before it was submitted in writing to the Accounting Officer.
2. Whether the meeting of 22 September 2008 contravened sections 8(e), 9(1) and 10(1) of the Act by being held by PPDA staff rather than its Board of Directors.
3. Whether the extension of an expired contract amounted to a fresh award of tender contrary to procurement procedure.
4. Whether a procurement process was still ongoing when the appellant submitted its bid, so as to engage regulation 57.
5. Whether the appellant had any legal right capable of enforcement by way of judicial review.
6. Whether the respondent was bound to follow the recommendations of PPDA.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs awarded to the respondent in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (15)

• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.3
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.8(e)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.9(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.10(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.10(2)(a)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.17(2)(a)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.90(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.90(3)(b)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.91(1)
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.57(4)
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 regs.136-140
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.138
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.139
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 reg.140(4)(c)

Cases cited (2)

• Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation and Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981) [1982] HCB 11

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Muleme v Absa Bank Uganda Limited (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application 49 of 2023)

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