Wakilii

Consortium of EAA Company Limited & East Africa Auto Technical Testing & Another v Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1048 of 20

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 201 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications for review of High Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 arising from procurement dispute
Decision
Original order set aside; procurement and all contracts cancelled; fresh procurement ordered

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 has inherent jurisdiction to review its own judgment, including appellate decisions, to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and prevent miscarriage of justice. Where a procuring entity awards contracts to multiple bidders without subjecting all to the same technical evaluation as required by law, and the original review judgment condemned unsuccessful bidders for the procuring entity's breaches while allowing one bidder to benefit, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. The entire procurement and all contracts signed thereunder must be cancelled, with a fresh procurement ordered.

Outcome

Original order set aside; procurement and all contracts cancelled; fresh procurement ordered

Facts

The Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) conducted a procurement for pre-export verification of conformity services for used motor vehicles (Procurement Ref. No. UNBS/CONS/2023-2024/00052). Initially, Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan (1st respondent) emerged as the best evaluated bidder after technical evaluation. The contracts committee rejected this recommendation and sent the matter back for re-evaluation of all bidders. Subsequently, UNBS awarded contracts to all three bidders without conducting detailed technical evaluation of the other two bidders' bids as per the evaluation methodology prescribed in the bidding documents. The PPDA Appeals Tribunal ordered UNBS to re-evaluate the applicants' bids through all successive evaluation stages. Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 found that UNBS breached procurement laws but upheld the award to the 1st respondent alone. The applicants then sought review of that judgment, arguing that the court erred in not nullifying the entire procurement process.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment given on appeal under the special jurisdiction created by Section 118 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.
  2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024.
  3. Whether the court ought to have nullified the entire procurement process rather than upholding the award to only one bidder after finding breaches of procurement laws.

Orders

  • Review application partially allowed.
  • Original order in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 set aside.
  • Procurement Ref. No. UNBS/CONS/2023-2024/00052 and all contracts signed thereunder cancelled.
  • 2nd applicant (UNBS) directed to conduct a fresh and proper procurement with immediate effect.
  • 2nd applicant to meet the costs of 1st respondent in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024.
  • No order as to costs in this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — High Court Appellate Jurisdiction — Power to Review Own Judgment
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to review its own judgment whether sitting as a court of first instance or as an appellate court, including where exercising special appellate jurisdiction under statute, to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and prevent miscarriage of justice, notwithstanding that the enabling statute declares the decision final and not subject to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Erroneous Decision
An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is self-evident and does not require an examination or argument to establish it. An error which has to be established by a long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record but rather an erroneous decision which is the subject of appeal, not review.
Civil Procedure — Review — Scope of Review Jurisdiction — Correction Without Radical Change
Review must ordinarily deal with straightforward issues which would not fundamentally and radically change the judgment intended to be reviewed, otherwise parties would lose direction as to the finality of a decision made by a particular court.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Evaluation of Bids — Requirement for Uniform Process
Where a procuring entity subjects one bidder to detailed technical evaluation and awards the contract to multiple bidders without subjecting the other bidders to the same rigorous evaluation methodology prescribed in the bidding documents, this constitutes a breach of procurement laws and an act of impunity against standard procurement processes.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Irregular Procurement — Remedy of Cancellation
Where a court finds that a procurement process has been conducted in flagrant breach of the procurement legal regime, including failure to evaluate all bids according to prescribed methodology, the entire procurement and all contracts signed thereunder must be cancelled and a fresh procurement ordered, rather than allowing any party to benefit from the irregular process.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sara Lee Household and Body Care (K) Ltd v Damji Pramji Mandavia (HCCC No. 114 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Consortium of EAA Company Limited & East Africa Auto Technical Testing & Another v Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1048 of 20 [2024] UGHCCD 201 (
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.