Wakilii

Earth Savers Movement Uganda Chapter v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No 15 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 14 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision filed directly to the Tribunal under section 89(9) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 as amended
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent

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 as incompetent on three grounds: the application was filed one day out of time; the applicant's bid had expired before filing and therefore the applicant was no longer a bidder with standing; and the applicant failed to prove that the accounting officer had a conflict of interest or could not handle the matter impartially, which is required to bypass the mandatory administrative review at entity level.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent

Facts

Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited issued a Request for Expression of Interest in July 2020 for NGO support services. Six bidders submitted expressions of interest; three were shortlisted including the applicant. The shortlisted bidders submitted proposals in January 2021 with bid validity until 6 July 2021. On 29 April 2022, the entity displayed notices of best evaluated bidder naming Centre for Research and Sustainable Solutions for lots 1-4 and Habitat for Community Uganda for lot 5. The applicant was disqualified at preliminary evaluation for not having an NGO operating permit or trading licence. On 10 May 2022, the applicant filed an application directly to the Tribunal without first applying to the accounting officer for administrative review, claiming the entity had "messed up the process." The respondent requested the other two shortlisted bidders to extend their bid validity, but there was no evidence the applicant was requested to extend or did extend its bid validity.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was filed in time.
  2. Whether the applicant has locus standi to file the present application before the Tribunal.
  3. Whether the applicant's failure to give notice to the respondent's accounting officer renders the application incompetent.

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated 23 May 2022 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Time Limits for Filing Applications — Mandatory Nature
The time limits prescribed in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and not directory. An application filed one day out of time is time-barred and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain it. A court has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period laid down by statute.
Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Definition of Bidder
Under section 3 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended, a bidder is a physical or artificial person intending to participate or participating in public procurement proceedings. An applicant whose bid validity has expired is no longer participating in the procurement proceedings and therefore ceases to be a bidder with locus standi to file an application for administrative review.
Public Procurement — Direct Application to Tribunal — Conflict of Interest
A bidder may apply directly to the Tribunal under section 89(9) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act only where the bidder believes the accounting officer has a conflict of interest or that the matter cannot be handled impartially by the procuring entity. Allegations of conflict of interest or partiality must be pleaded and proved with cogent and reasonable evidence. A bare assertion that the entity "messed up the process" is insufficient.
Statutory Notice — Effect of Failure to Serve
Failure to serve statutory notice under section 89(10) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act does not vitiate the proceedings. It is settled law that failure to serve statutory notice does not render proceedings incompetent.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (9)

  • Super Taste Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2021)
  • Apa Insurance Uganda Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 2 of 2022)
  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2017) [2018] UGSC 19
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • K-Solutions Ltd v Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (Application No. 16 of 2021)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 18 of 2021)
  • Mohammed Oladapo Ojengbede v. M. O. Esan (Loja-Oke) (S.C. 132/ 1991) [2001] NGSC 58
  • Elite Chemicals Limited v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Application No. 8 of 2021)
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Kabandize and 20 Others (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Earth Savers Movement Uganda Chapter v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No 15 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 14 (7 June 2022)
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.