Wakilii

Dot Gov Solution LLC v National Information Technology Uganda [2025] UGPPDPAAT 2

Tribunal · 2025 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for lack of locus standi due to expired bid validity

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 on the ground that the applicant lacked locus standi. The applicant's proposal validity expired on 24 October 2024 and was not extended despite a request from the respondent. By the time the application was filed on 24 December 2024, the applicant was no longer a bidder in the procurement process and therefore had no standing to seek administrative review under Section 115 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi due to expired bid validity

Facts

The Government of Uganda through National Information Technology-Uganda (NITA-U) initiated a tender for proposals for the design, development and commissioning of an e-services development framework under procurement reference number NITA-U/UDAP/SRVS/23-24/00053. The applicant dotGOV Solutions LLC submitted a proposal on 19 June 2024 with a validity period until 24 October 2024. Upon technical evaluation, the applicant's proposal was found non-responsive and rejected on 3 October 2024. On 21 October 2024, NITA-U requested the applicant to extend its bid validity until 30 January 2025, but the applicant did not respond. The applicant filed a procurement-related complaint with the Accounting Officer on 22 October 2024. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on 16 December 2024. The applicant then filed an application for administrative review with the Tribunal on 24 December 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Respondent was right to declare the Applicant's technical proposal as non-responsive on account of having been signed by CEO Sergey Chapkey instead of the delegated Attorney Rowan Vos and for non-registration/notarization?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order of December 24, 2024 is vacated.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Bid Validity Period
A bidder whose bid validity period has expired is no longer a bidder in the actual sense and has no locus standi to apply for administrative review before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal under Section 115 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205.
Public Procurement — Bid Validity — Effect of Expiry
Once a bid validity period expires, the procurement process comes to an end in relation to that bidder. Any application for administrative review based on an expired bid is incompetent.
Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Change of Status
A bidder who participated in a procurement process cannot change status to become a person whose rights are adversely affected by the decision of the Accounting Officer for purposes of obtaining locus standi before the Tribunal under Section 115(1)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap 205.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (13)

  • China Civil Engineering and Construction Corporation v Uganda National Roads Authority (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 11 of 2023)
  • Macfay v United Africa Company Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169
  • Plumb Base Limited v National Agricultural Advisory Services (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 19 of 2022)
  • Transtrack Limited v PPDA and Ministry of Works and Transport (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 10 of 2017)
  • Kasokoso Services Limited v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 13 of 2021)
  • Meera Investment Limited v National Lotteries and Gaming Regulatory Board & Riverstone Africa Ltd/Grand Capital Reality (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 44 of 2024)
  • Kazini Fredric v PPDA (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Twed Property Development Limited v PPDA (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 9 of 2015)
  • Mbarara City & Anr v Obon Infrastructure Development JV (High Court Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2021)
  • Globe World Engineering Uganda Limited v Mbarara City Council and Another (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 14 of 2023)
  • MBJ Technologies Limited v Mbarara City & Ors (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 17 of 2022)
  • Apple Properties Limited v Uganda Human Rights Commission (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 6 of 2023)
  • Ticos Investment Ltd v Lira City Council (PPDA Appeals Tribunal Application No. 5 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dot Gov Solution LLC v National Information Technology Uganda 2025 UGPPDPAAT 2 (14 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.