Wakilii

Fafa Glass Industries Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport [2025] UGPPDPAAT 30

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision under Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

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 for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant's letter requesting an extension of the bid submission deadline did not constitute an administrative review complaint under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. Without first lodging a proper administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer, the applicant had no locus standi to invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The application was fundamentally defective for being filed directly with the Tribunal without following the prescribed statutory procedure.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

The Ministry of Works and Transport invited bids for rehabilitation and expansion of facilities at Central Materials Laboratory. Fafa Glass Industries Limited purchased the bid document on June 30, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the applicant attempted to submit its bid through the Electronic Government Procurement portal but encountered an error message stating "413 content too large". The applicant sent a letter to the Accounting Officer on the same day requesting an extension of the bid submission deadline. The Respondent did not respond. On July 15, 2025, the Respondent concluded the evaluation process and awarded the contract to another bidder. On July 31, 2025, the applicant filed an application before the Tribunal for review of the Respondent's decision.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a competent Application for determination before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Respondent acted unlawfully and improperly in refusing to allow the Applicant to submit its bid despite the technical errors encountered during the submission process on the Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP) portal?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated July 31, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Definition of Bidder
A bidder within the meaning of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act is any natural or legal person who intends to participate or is participating in public procurement proceedings. Recognition as a bidder requires taking concrete steps such as submitting a formal written application to purchase the bidding documents and completing the purchase by paying the stipulated non-refundable fee. Simply inspecting bidding documents or attending a pre-bid meeting does not make one a bidder.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Requirements for Valid Complaint
A letter requesting an extension of the bid submission deadline does not constitute an administrative review complaint under section 106 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. A valid administrative review complaint must include the factual and legal grounds of the complaint, the specific breach alleged, the requested corrective measures, supporting evidence, and any other relevant information as required by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Administrative Review) Regulations, 2023.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Conditions for Invoking Jurisdiction
A bidder may approach the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal under only three circumstances: first, when aggrieved by the decision of an Accounting Officer following an administrative review complaint; second, when the Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate a decision following an administrative review complaint; and third, when the bidder reasonably believes that the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest and files an application directly with the Tribunal without first making an administrative review complaint. An application filed directly with the Tribunal without first submitting a complaint to the Accounting Officer and without alleging any conflict of interest is fundamentally defective and lacking in jurisdiction.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • NJau & Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • Clear Channel Independent Uganda Ltd v PPDA Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 350 of 2008)
  • Galleria in Africa v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2017)
  • Xian Electric Engineering Co. Ltd v Mukono District Local Government (Application No. 1 of 2025)
  • Apple Properties Limited v Uganda Human Rights Commission (Application No. 6 of 2023)
  • Beautiful Engineering Equipment Limited v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 15 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fafa Glass Industries Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport 2025 UGPPDPAAT 30 (19 August 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.