Wakilii

CRJE (East Africa) Limited v National Council for Higher Education [2025] UGPPDPAAT 1

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision to re-advertise tender after applicant was declared best evaluated bidder in earlier procurement
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process

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 struck out the application for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that it became functus officio after rendering its decision in Application No. 27 of 2024, which was under appeal to the High Court. The Tribunal further held that it could not exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court where the applicant had filed a judicial review application seeking substantially the same reliefs. The application was also found to be an abuse of process under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process

Facts

On January 25, 2024, the National Council for Higher Education initiated a procurement for construction of its main building offices. CRJE (East Africa) Ltd was declared the best evaluated bidder on April 2, 2024 at a contract price of UGX 123,089,038,802. Following a whistleblower complaint, the notice was cancelled on May 9, 2024. CRJE challenged the cancellation before the Tribunal in Application No. 27 of 2024. On June 20, 2024, the Tribunal set aside the cancellation and remitted the matter to the Respondent. The Solicitor General declined to authorize contract execution due to lack of confirmation of funds. After the Secretary to the Treasury confirmed availability of funds on October 2, 2024, the Respondent initiated a fresh procurement on October 10, 2024 under reference NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001. CRJE did not submit a bid for the new tender. China National Aero Technology International Engineering Corporation was declared the successful bidder on November 21, 2024. CRJE filed the instant application on December 16, 2024, challenging the re-advertisement. Meanwhile, the Respondent had appealed the Tribunal's decision in Application No. 27 of 2024 to the High Court, and CRJE had filed a judicial review application in the High Court seeking substantially the same reliefs as in the instant application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the instant Application?
  2. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of the decision of the PPDA Appeals Tribunal dated June 20, 2024, vide Application No. 27 of 2024?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law when it declined to execute a contract with the Applicant under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/23-24/001?
  4. Whether the Respondent's Accounting Officer acted illegally and unfairly towards the Applicant in readvertising the tender under Procurement Reference Number: NCHE/WRKS/2024-2025/001?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's December 17, 2024 suspension order is vacated.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Jurisdiction of Tribunals — Functus Officio — Effect of Appeal to Superior Court
A tribunal becomes functus officio after rendering its decision and cannot revisit the judgment or exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power over the same matter except for the limited purpose of correcting clerical or mathematical errors. Where a tribunal's decision is under appeal to a superior court, the tribunal cannot re-open or re-adjudicate matters relating to the subject of that appeal.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Concurrent Proceedings — Abuse of Process
A tribunal cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court. Where an applicant has filed proceedings in the High Court seeking substantially the same reliefs as those sought before a tribunal, the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter. Such concurrent proceedings constitute an abuse of process under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Administrative Law — Contempt of Tribunal — Proper Procedure for Contempt Applications
Actions for contempt arising out of a decision of a tribunal cannot be commenced by filing a fresh application before the tribunal under the general provisions conferring jurisdiction. Rather, actions for contempt should be filed or brought as miscellaneous applications arising out of the decision from which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Duty to Inquire into Jurisdiction
A tribunal is duty bound to inquire into the existence of facts to decide whether it has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a creature of statute and must be acquired before judgment is given. A tribunal must inquire whether the applicant has locus to file an application and whether the tribunal is seized or clothed with jurisdiction to interrogate the merits of the application.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (12)

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115
  • R v The Civil Aviation Authority, ex parte T.A. Travel [2002] 1 WLR 1864
  • Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1982] AC 529
  • Vallambrosa Rubber Company Limited v Chief Finance Officer of the Government of Ghana [1980] 1 WLR 411
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Ministry of Public Service (1985) AC 374
  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR 1
  • Passionate Ventures SMS Uganda Limited v Bulambuli District Local Government (Application No. 35 of 2023)
  • K-Solutions Ltd v Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (Application No. 16 of 2021)
  • Beautiful Engineering & Equipment Ltd v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 15 of 2021)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 18 of 2021)
  • Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga & Another (SCCA No. 08 of 2004)
  • Auto Terminal Japan Limited and 2 others v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Application No. 26 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

CRJE (East Africa) Limited v National Council for Higher Education 2025 UGPPDPAAT 1 (9 January 2025)
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.