Equator Touring Services Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (Civil Appeal 119 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 of Appeal considered whether a 2005 contract for managing Nakivubo Park Yard Market between the appellant and Kampala City Council was valid despite non-compliance with public procurement law. The court held that although Article 119(5) of the Constitution, requiring Attorney General legal advice for Government contracts, did not apply to local governments, the PPDA Act, in force from February 2003, and the Local Governments (PPDA) Regulations 2006 did apply to the council as a procuring entity. The 2005 contract was a fresh three-year contract made without complying with these laws, rendering it void ab initio. Illegality, once shown, overrode objections on the pleadings. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's decision that the contract was invalid and void upheld; costs awarded to the respondent.

Facts

In December 2000, Kampala City Council (KCC) and the appellant entered a contract for management of Nakivubo Park Yard Market, running two years and subject to revision every two years. On 18 March 2005, KCC wrote extending the arrangement for three years with effect from 1 April 2005, which the appellant accepted. Following a disagreement, KCC terminated the contract, prompting the appellant to file HCCS 763 of 2007. Before any settlement, the parties asked the High Court to determine the legality of the contract and whether gazetting of the market was required. The High Court, per Justice Madrama, held the contract a nullity for violating the PPDA Act, no clearance having been obtained from the Attorney General. The appellant appealed, arguing the 2005 contract was a mere extension of the 2000 contract predating the PPDA Act, and that KCC, being a local government, was not bound by Article 119(5) of the Constitution requiring Attorney General legal advice.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence adduced at trial, thereby reaching a wrong conclusion.
2. Whether the contract between the parties required to be cleared by or given legal advice from the Attorney General under Article 119(5) of the Constitution.
3. Whether there was a valid and legally enforceable contract between the parties.
4. Whether the 2005 contract was a mere extension or variation of the 2000 contract rather than a fresh contract.
5. Whether the contract was procured in violation of the PPDA Act and the Regulations made thereunder.
6. Whether the contract between the parties was a nullity.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• Decision of the lower court upheld.
• Costs of the appeal and of the lower court awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 119(5)
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.2
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.3
• Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.25(1)
• Contracts Act 2010 s.10(1)
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.114
• Interpretation Act s.2
• Local Governments Act s.1
• Local Governments Act s.6
• Local Governments Act s.91
• Markets Act Cap 94 s.1(2)
• Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets) Regulations 2006 Reg.86(2)(f)
• Constitution (Exemption of Particular Contracts from Attorney General Legal Advice) Instrument para.12

Cases cited (13)

• Finishing Touches Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 744 of 2010)
• Kabandize and 20 Others v KCCA (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2011)
• Rose & Frank Co v J.R. Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] All ER 248
• Setrmaco International Ltd v Board of Directors/Head Teacher Lubiri Secondary School and Another HCT-00-CC-478-2005
• Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Fredrick J.K. Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Nsimbe Holdings Limited v Attorney General and Inspector General of Government (Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2006)
• Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (SCCA No. 6 of 2001)
• Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance Corporation & GM Combined (U) Ltd (SCCA No. 28 of 1995)
• Blay v Pollard [1930] 1 KB 628
• Odd Jobs v Mubia [1970] EA 476
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [1982] HCB 11

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.

• Namutumba District Local Government and Another v Dhikusooka John (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2018)

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