Wakilii

D and D Law Publishing House Limited v Electoral Commission [2025] UGPPDPAAT 46

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of administrative review decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement evaluation decision 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

Held that a bidder's letter to an Accounting Officer titled 'Clarification and appeal against best evaluated bidder notice' constitutes a formal administrative review complaint under section 106 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act where it details the grievance, supporting facts, and corrective measures sought. Non-payment of administrative review fees is not fatal where the bidder sought guidance on payment procedures. However, the Applicant's bids were properly disqualified for administrative non-compliance: the arrangement with Mail Solutions UK constituted a joint venture requiring a joint venture agreement and powers of attorney, which were not submitted, and the Applicant failed to provide audited financial statements for the last three years as required.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement evaluation decision upheld

Facts

The Electoral Commission issued a call for bids for printing and supply of ballot papers and related materials for the 2026 general elections, divided into 10 lots. D&D Law Publishing House Ltd submitted bids for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. On 15 September 2025, the Electoral Commission published the Notice of Best Evaluated Bidders, disqualifying the Applicant's bids. For Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, the disqualification was based on the Applicant being in partnership with Mail Solutions UK without submitting a joint venture agreement, powers of attorney, or audited accounts for Mail Solutions UK. For Lots 5 and 10, the Applicant's name was initially omitted from the notice due to clerical error; the corrected notice stated disqualification for failure to attach evidence of three completed contracts, evidence of printing 20 million ballot papers, and because the lots were reserved for local printers. On 18 September 2025, the Applicant wrote to the Accounting Officer seeking clarification and appealing the decision. The Accounting Officer responded on 23 September 2025, acknowledging the clerical error but finding no merit in the appeal. The Applicant then filed an application to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal on 6 October 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant submitted a competent administrative review complaint to the Respondent's Accounting Officer?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in law when it disqualified the Applicant's bids?
  3. Whether there are available remedies to the Parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated October 13, 2025, vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Locus Standi — Requirement of Competent Complaint
A bidder who has not made an administrative review complaint to the Accounting Officer has no locus standi to apply to the PPDA Appeals Tribunal for review, unless the bidder pleads and proves that the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest and cannot impartially handle the matter.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Form of Complaint — Substance Over Form
Non-conformity with a prescribed form does not render a document void, provided the substance remains unaffected and the deviation is not misleading. A letter to an Accounting Officer that details the nature of the grievance, supporting facts, corrective measures sought, and the purpose of the communication satisfies the definition of a 'Complaint' under section 106(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 4(3)(a)-(f) of the Administrative Review Regulations, even if not titled or formatted as a formal complaint.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Payment of Fees — Effect of Non-Payment
Late or non-payment of administrative review fees is not necessarily fatal, provided the proper fees can subsequently be assessed and paid. Where a bidder expressly seeks guidance from the Accounting Officer on payment procedures and the Accounting Officer fails to provide such guidance, non-payment of fees cannot be relied upon to argue that an application to the Tribunal was premature.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Joint Ventures — Mandatory Documentation
Where a bidder presents a relationship with another entity as a 'partnership' and the entire supply and related services are to be performed by that entity, such arrangement constitutes a joint venture or intended joint venture under the bidding document. The bid must include a joint venture agreement or letter of intent to enter into such an agreement, and powers of attorney from each member of the joint venture and from the joint venture itself, as required by the Instructions to Bidders.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Missing Eligibility Documents — Duty to Seek Clarification
Failure to submit an eligibility document at the time of bid submission is not, in itself, a fatal omission, as the Procuring and Disposing Entity is required to seek clarification and allow the bidder to furnish the missing document in accordance with regulation 17(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023. A missing document listed as an eligibility document may be requested from a bidder, provided that it was valid as of the bid submission deadline.
Public Procurement — Evaluation — Administrative Compliance — Material Deviations
A bid that is not administratively compliant and responsive to the bidding documents must be rejected at the preliminary examination stage of evaluation. Where the non-compliance constitutes a material deviation, the Evaluation Committee is not required to waive, clarify, or correct the deviation. In procurements involving sensitive materials for time-bound general elections, failure to provide mandatory audited financial statements for the last three years constitutes a material deviation that justifies rejection without clarification.
Public Procurement — Appeals Tribunal — Scope of Review — Merits Review
The PPDA Appeals Tribunal, as a merits review body, possesses broad authority to examine both the lawfulness and the merits of the procurement decision under challenge and, where appropriate, to set aside the impugned decision and substitute it with its own. This power includes assessing all relevant legal and factual issues, provided all interested parties are given an opportunity to be heard, are notified in advance, and procedural fairness is observed.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (13)

  • Njau & Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • Executive Committee of Iganga Central Market v Iganga Municipal Council (PPDA Application No. 26 of 2025)
  • Yoya Technologies Limited, Eviden Information Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd and Percent Technology Group Co. Ltd Joint Venture, Aisino Corporation v Uganda Revenue Authority (PPDA Consolidated Applications No. 30 and 31 of 2025)
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing & Midwifery (PPDA Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v PPDA & Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (PPDA Application No. 4 of 2021)
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company (PPDA Application No. 18 of 2025)
  • VCON Construction (U) Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (PPDA Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Samanga Elcomplus JV v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (PPDA Application No. 17 of 2021)
  • Lawrence Muwanga v Stephen Kyeyune (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2001)
  • Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters SACCO (High Court Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
  • Twed Property Development Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (PPDA Application No. 13 of 2025)
  • Emtec Technical Services Ltd v Uganda High Commission, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (PPDA Application No. 5 of 2025)
  • Gibb (PTY) Limited in Joint Venture with Acmirs Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and Another (PPDA 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 v Electoral Commission 2025 UGPPDPAAT 46 (23 October 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.