Wakilii

Consortium of EAA Company Limited & East Africa Auto Technical Testing & Another v Quality Inspection Services Inc Japan & Another (Miscellaneous Application 1048 of 2024; Miscellaneous Application 11

High Court Application Partly Allowed — Procurement Cancelled 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
Procurement and contracts cancelled; matter remitted to UNBS for fresh procurement

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 it has inherent jurisdiction to review its own appellate judgment where there is error apparent on the face of the record. The court found it erred in upholding a contract award to one bidder while finding the procurement process breached procurement laws and other bidders were not properly evaluated. The entire procurement and contracts were cancelled and a fresh procurement ordered.

Outcome

Procurement and contracts cancelled; matter remitted to UNBS for fresh procurement

Facts

UNBS conducted a procurement for pre-export verification of conformity services for used motor vehicles. The 1st respondent initially emerged as best evaluated bidder. Following objections and PPDA Appeals Tribunal orders, the evaluation was sent back. The Contracts Committee then awarded contracts to all three bidders without conducting detailed technical evaluation of the other two bidders' bids. The applicants filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024) which was partially successful but upheld the award to the 1st respondent. The applicants then filed consolidated review applications challenging the court's decision to uphold any outcome of a procurement process the court found to be in breach of procurement laws.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment given on appeal under special procurement jurisdiction created under section 118 of the PPDA Act.
  2. Whether there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and orders made in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review Jurisdiction — High Court Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction — Maintainability
The High Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment even when sitting as an appellate court under special statutory jurisdiction, where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, notwithstanding that the statute declares such appellate decisions final and not subject to appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require 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.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Award of Contract — Unlawful Process — Judicial Remedy
Where a court finds that a procurement process has been conducted in breach of procurement laws and without proper evaluation of competing bidders, it is an error apparent on the face of the record to uphold any contract award resulting from that flawed process. The entire procurement must be cancelled and a fresh procurement ordered.
Civil Procedure — Review — Inherent Jurisdiction — Rectification to Prevent Injustice
The court has inherent jurisdiction to recall an order or give effect to its manifest intention where necessary to prevent injustice. The essence of review must ordinarily deal with straightforward issues and not fundamentally and radically change the judgment, but the court may rectify an order that occasions injustice to a litigant.

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 2024; Miscellaneous Application 11
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.