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 1109 of 2024) 2024 UGHCCD 201 (20 November 2

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
Procurement process cancelled; matter remitted to 2nd applicant 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

Held that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to review its own judgment whether sitting as a court of first instance or as an appellate court under special statute, where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The court found an error apparent on the record in condemning two bidders for UNBS's procurement breaches when only the first respondent's bid had been properly evaluated. The procurement process and all contracts signed thereunder were cancelled and a fresh procurement ordered.

Outcome

Procurement process cancelled; matter remitted to 2nd applicant for fresh procurement

Facts

The Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) conducted a procurement for pre-export verification of conformity services of used motor vehicles. The 1st respondent initially emerged as the best evaluated bidder after technical evaluation. The contracts committee rejected the initial evaluation report and directed re-evaluation of all bidders. The evaluation committee subsequently recommended awarding contracts to all three bidders without conducting detailed technical evaluation of the other two bidders' bids. In Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024, the High Court found that UNBS had breached procurement laws by failing to properly evaluate the applicants' bids through successive stages, yet upheld the award to the 1st respondent alone. The applicants sought review of that decision, arguing that the court erred in upholding any outcome from a flawed procurement process and in visiting UNBS's failures upon them as innocent bidders.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case to review the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024.
  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.
  3. Whether the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act can review its own judgment.

Orders

  • Application partially allowed.
  • Original order in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 set aside.
  • Procurement Ref. No. UNBS/CONS/2023-2024/00052 and contracts signed thereunder cancelled.
  • 2nd applicant directed to conduct a 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 this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Jurisdiction of High Court — Review of Appellate Judgment
The High Court has jurisdiction to review its own judgment whether sitting as a court of first instance or as an appellate court under special statute, including when exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.118.
Civil Procedure — Review — Functus Officio — Exceptions
The doctrine of functus officio has exceptions, and review is one of them. A court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to recall an order or give effect to its manifest intention to rectify errors apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure — Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Test
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 — Error Apparent on Record — Visiting Procuring Entity's Breaches on Innocent Bidders
It is an error apparent on the face of the record for a court to condemn bidders for procurement irregularities committed by the procuring entity when those bidders had no part in the entity's failure to properly evaluate their bids in accordance with procurement law.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Equal Treatment of Bidders — Technical Evaluation
Where a procuring entity conducts detailed technical evaluation of one bidder's proposal but awards contracts to multiple bidders without subjecting the other bidders to the same evaluation rigors, such procurement process constitutes a breach of procurement laws and regulations requiring equal treatment of bidders.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sara Lee Household and Body Care (K) Ltd v Damji Pramji Mandavia (High Court Civil Case 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 1109 of 2024) 2024 UGHCCD 201 (20 November 2
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.