Wakilii

Eyere Company SMC Limited v Arua City Council [2025] UGPPDPAAT 41

Tribunal · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an administrative review decision by the Respondent's Accounting Officer regarding a procurement for revenue collection
Decision
Both prior contract awards set aside; matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation by a newly constituted Evaluation Committee within 10 working days

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 held that the Accounting Officer exceeded his powers by usurping the functions of the Evaluation Committee and Contracts Committee when he evaluated Hopeway Limited's bid and declared it the best evaluated bidder. The Accounting Officer's decision was set aside. The Tribunal found that the irregular designation of the Evaluation Committee chairperson by the Procurement and Disposal Unit, rather than by the committee members themselves, did not invalidate the evaluation process as it did not compromise the integrity of the evaluation. The matter was remitted for re-evaluation by a newly constituted Evaluation Committee.

Outcome

Both prior contract awards set aside; matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation by a newly constituted Evaluation Committee within 10 working days

Facts

Arua City Council initiated a procurement for revenue collection from loading and offloading in Arua Central Division at an estimated monthly revenue of UGX 25,000,000 for twelve months. Four bidders submitted bids on July 17, 2025. The Respondent issued a Best Evaluated Bidder Notice on August 1, 2025, declaring Eyere Company SMC Ltd the best evaluated bidder at UGX 48,150,000 per month. Hopeway Limited filed an administrative review complaint on August 7, 2025, alleging that the chairperson of the Evaluation Committee was nominated by the Procurement and Disposal Unit rather than elected by committee members, contrary to regulation 3(1) of the Evaluation Regulations 2023. The Accounting Officer constituted an Administrative Review Committee and on August 14, 2025, found merit in the complaint and declared Hopeway Limited the best evaluated bidder at UGX 45,550,000. Eyere Company SMC Ltd, aggrieved by this decision, filed the instant application on August 26, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Accounting Officer made and communicated his administrative review decision within the statutory timeline?
  3. Whether the Accounting Officer failed to decide and indicate corrective measures to be taken in his decision regarding the administrative review?
  4. Whether the designation of the chairperson of the Evaluation Committee by the Procurement and Disposal Unit invalidated the evaluation process?
  5. Whether the Procurement and Disposal Unit and the Evaluation Committee had a conflict of interest in the procurement process due to the prior nomination of the chairperson of the Evaluation Committee by the Procurement and Disposal Unit instead of being elected by the Evaluation Committee members?
  6. Whether the Accounting Officer erred when he evaluated and awarded the contract for revenue collection from loading and offloading to Hopeway Limited without cancelling and setting aside the award of the contract to Eyere Company SMC Limited as the best evaluated bidder approved by the Contracts Committee?
  7. Whether the Accounting Officer erred in his decision regarding the administrative review by evaluating and awarding the contract for revenue collection from loading and offloading to Hopeway Limited without any powers to do so?
  8. Whether the Assistant Deputy Town Clerk had a conflict of interest when he was appointed as Chairperson of the Administrative Review Committee?
  9. Whether the bid of the Applicant was responsive?
  10. Whether the bid of Hopeway Limited was responsive?

Orders

  • The Application is allowed.
  • The decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer dated August 14, 2025, is set aside.
  • The award of contract in the impugned procurement to Rainbow Market Vendors Association, as communicated in the Accounting Officer's decision dated August 14, 2025, is set aside.
  • The award of contract in the impugned procurement to Eyere Company SMC Limited, as communicated in the Best Evaluated Bidder Notice dated August 1, 2025, is set aside.
  • The Respondent is directed to re-evaluate the bids in the impugned procurement in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the bidding document and the law.
  • The re-evaluation should be conducted by a fresh lawfully appointed Evaluation Committee, within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated August 25, 2025, is vacated.
  • The Respondent shall refund the Interested Party's administrative review fees.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Bidder Status
A bidder who submits a bid for a specific procurement reference has locus standi to challenge decisions relating to that procurement, even where the bid contains a misnomer or erroneous additional reference that does not mislead the procuring entity as to the tender for which the bid was submitted.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Timeline for Communication
Under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 8 of the Administrative Review Regulations 2023, the Accounting Officer must make and communicate an administrative review decision to the complainant within ten days of receipt of the complaint. The law does not require that the decision be communicated to interested parties within the same ten-day period.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Corrective Measures
Corrective measures in an administrative review decision are not mandatory in all cases. The overriding obligation is to make and communicate a decision within the statutory timeline and to give reasons for the decision. Whether corrective measures are required depends on the decision made and the reasons for it.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Committee — Selection of Chairperson
Under regulation 3(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023, members of an Evaluation Committee must select a chairperson from amongst themselves. The advance designation of a chairperson by the Procurement and Disposal Unit or Accounting Officer, rather than by the committee members, is contrary to the regulations. However, where the committee members accept the designated chairperson by conduct, the evaluation is conducted jointly and unanimously without dissent, and there is no evidence that the irregularity compromised the integrity of the evaluation process or affected the outcome, the irregularity does not invalidate the entire evaluation.
Public Procurement — Separation of Powers — Accounting Officer's Authority
Under section 26 and section 40 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, a procuring and disposing entity consists of five distinct organs: the Accounting Officer, Contracts Committee, Procurement and Disposal Unit, User Department, and Evaluation Committee. Each organ is expected to act independently regarding its respective functions and powers. An Accounting Officer who upholds an administrative review complaint is authorized to set aside a prior award, but has no power to evaluate bids or declare a best evaluated bidder. Those powers are vested in the Evaluation Committee and Contracts Committee respectively. An Accounting Officer who usurps these powers acts illegally.
Public Procurement — Conflict of Interest — Definition and Evidence
Conflict of interest is any situation in which an individual or corporation is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit. A finding of conflict of interest requires evidence that the person exploited their position for personal benefit. The mere fact that a Procurement and Disposal Unit Head designated an Evaluation Committee chairperson, or that an Assistant Deputy Town Clerk who communicated the designation later chaired an Administrative Review Committee, does not without more constitute a conflict of interest.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (2)

  • Njau & Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • Uganda v Patricia Ojangole (Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Eyere Company SMC Limited v Arua City Council 2025 UGPPDPAAT 41 (15 September 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.