Wakilii

D and D Law Publishing House Limited in Joint Venture With Mail Solutions UK Limited ta Kalamazoo v Uganda National Examinations Board [2026] UGPPDPAAT 10

Tribunal · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement outcome upheld

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 held that the application was competent despite non-payment of administrative review fees at the time of filing, as the Accounting Officer became functus officio after failing to render a decision within the statutory ten-day period. The Tribunal found that the Respondent erred in disqualifying the Applicant's bid for failure to submit a certified joint venture agreement and Company Form 20, as these defects were capable of clarification. However, the Applicant's failure to submit a Beneficial Ownership Form for Mail Solutions UK Ltd was a material non-compliance with mandatory administrative criteria. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement outcome upheld

Facts

On 29 October 2025, the Uganda National Examinations Board commenced a procurement process for the supply and delivery of result slips and certificates under a two-year framework contract. Three bidders submitted bids by 30 December 2025. On 19 January 2026, the Respondent issued a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice declaring Al Security Print Ltd as the best evaluated bidder at UGX 1,327,595,600. The Applicant's bid was disqualified on three grounds: the joint venture agreement was neither signed nor certified; no beneficial ownership form was submitted for Mail Solutions UK Ltd; and Form 20 was not provided. The Applicant lodged a complaint with the Accounting Officer on 23 January 2026. On 3 February 2026, the Respondent advised the Applicant to pay UGX 5,000,000 as administrative review fees, but by then the statutory ten-day period for the Accounting Officer to render a decision had expired. The Applicant filed this application on 12 February 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant Application is competent before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid?
  3. Whether the bid of the best evaluated bidder was signed by an authorized person?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated February 18, 2026 is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Payment of Fees — Timing and Effect
Payment of administrative review fees is mandatory under section 106(3)(a) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, but late or non-payment at the time of filing a complaint is not necessarily fatal provided the correct fees can be assessed and paid within the ten days allowed for making an administrative review decision. The ten-day period for the Accounting Officer to render a decision begins running when the administrative review complaint is lodged, not when the fees are paid.
Public Procurement — Accounting Officer — Duty to Guide on Payment of Fees
An Accounting Officer has a statutory responsibility to advise and guide a complainant on how and where to pay administrative review fees. Guidance should be useful, accurate, and aimed at enabling payment. Purported guidance that is perfunctory, incomplete, or misleading, or that is provided after the statutory decision period has expired, is of no legal effect.
Public Procurement — Functus Officio — Effect of Expiry of Statutory Period
Where an Accounting Officer fails to render a decision on an administrative review complaint within the statutory ten-day period prescribed by section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the Accounting Officer becomes functus officio and any subsequent communication purporting to guide on payment of fees or to address the complaint is of no legal effect.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Clarification of Eligibility Documents
A procuring entity may request clarification of eligibility documents under ITB 35.1 and regulation 17(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023, provided that the clarification does not alter the substance of the bid and that the document existed at the time of submission. Defects or omissions in eligibility documentation may properly be addressed through clarification rather than immediate disqualification.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Imposition of Additional Requirements
An evaluation committee cannot introduce new conditions or requirements not expressly stipulated in the bidding document. Section 76 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 5(2) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023 require that evaluation be conducted strictly in accordance with the criteria set out in the bidding document.
Public Procurement — Beneficial Ownership — Disclosure Requirements for Joint Ventures
A bidding joint venture is required to disclose the beneficial owners of all joint venture companies. A beneficial owner means a natural person who has final ownership or control of a company or on whose behalf a transaction is conducted, and includes a natural person who exercises ultimate control over a company. Failure to submit a Beneficial Ownership Form for each member of a joint venture constitutes non-compliance with mandatory administrative criteria.
Public Procurement — Interpretation of the Act — Holistic Approach
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act must be interpreted as a whole. No single provision should be interpreted in isolation. The mandatory requirement for payment of administrative review fees under section 106(3)(a) must be read together with the overriding principles of transparency and fairness under sections 46 and 48.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (7)

  • VCON Construction (U) Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Minet Uganda Insurance Brokers Limited v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 3 of 2026)
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company (Application No. 18 of 2025)
  • Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Galleria In Africa Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2017)
  • Emtec Technical Services Ltd v Uganda High Commission, Dar Es Salaam (Application No. 5 of 2025)
  • Gibb (PTY) Ltd in JV with Acmirs Consulting Ltd v Ministry of Works and Transport (Application No. 16 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

D and D Law Publishing House Limited in Joint Venture With Mail Solutions UK Limited ta Kalamazoo v Uganda National Examinations Board 2026 UGPPDPAAT 10 (6 March 2026)
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.