Dolamite Engineering Services Ltd v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Suit 599 of 2014)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court held that a procurement process funded by the African Development Bank and conducted in accordance with ADB Rules did not violate the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 because section 4(1) of the Act provides that international agreements prevail over domestic law. The plaintiff's bid was properly rejected for failure to meet specific experience requirements and because its bid security was withdrawn by the issuing bank and found to be fraudulently obtained. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed — procurement process upheld as lawful and bid rejection justified

Facts

The government of Uganda, with African Development Bank funding, advertised a tender for construction of Lira Central Market. The bidding notice stated that the procurement would be conducted under ADB Rules and Procedures. The plaintiff submitted a bid accompanied by a bid security purportedly issued by Equity Bank. The plaintiff's bid was rejected on 24 August 2011 for failure to meet specific experience requirements under the evaluation criteria. The plaintiff complained of irregularities including document siphoning, bribery, and corruption, and sought an administrative review under the PPDA Act. The Executive Director of PPDA and the Permanent Secretary advised the plaintiff that the procurement was governed by ADB Rules, not the PPDA Act, and that administrative review was not available. Equity Bank subsequently withdrew the bid security and stated it had not issued the security, which it described as fraudulent. The Inspector General of Government investigated the corruption allegations and found no irregularities. In a separate suit, the High Court found the bid security was not obtained through lawful means. The plaintiff brought this suit seeking declarations that the bidding process was illegal and claiming damages.

Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff's Bid was unfairly rejected by the Ministry of Local Government.
2. Whether it was proper for the procurement process to be conducted solely under the African Development Bank Rules and Procedures for Procurement of Goods and Works.
3. Whether the Procurement process was conducted contrary to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 and if so, whether the Defendants are liable.

Orders

• The suit is dismissed.
• Costs to be borne by the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.4(1)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.26(h)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.90
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.224(1)
• PPDA Regulations No.70 of 2003 reg.343
• PPDA Regulations No.70 of 2003 reg.344
• PPDA Regulations No.70 of 2003 reg.345
• PPDA Regulations No.70 of 2003 reg.346

Cases cited (1)

• Dolamite Engineering Services Ltd v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 51 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• China Civil Engineering and Construction Corporation v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application 11 of 2023)

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