Fara Gostar Bistoon v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No 2 of 2023)
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 grounds of incompetence. The Applicant lacked locus standi because its bid validity expired on 31 January 2023 before the oral hearing on 7 February 2023, meaning it was no longer a bidder. Additionally, the Applicant failed to first lodge a complaint with the Accounting Officer before approaching the Tribunal as required under section 91I of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003.
Outcome
Application struck out for lack of competence
Facts
On 19 May 2022, the Respondent invited bids for supply of five 132kv double circuit transmission line monopole towers. Four bidders submitted bids by 29 June 2022. On 4 October 2022, Fara Gostar Bistoon was declared the Best Evaluated Bidder at UGX 2,829,588,800. Precise Engineering Services Limited challenged the award through administrative review and later before the Tribunal in Application No. 43 of 2022. On 28 November 2022, the Tribunal allowed that application and remitted the procurement for re-evaluation within ten days. On 20 December 2022, the Respondent's Contracts Committee approved cancellation of the procurement due to ambiguities in the Statement of Requirements. On 27 December 2022, all bidders were notified of the cancellation. On 25 January 2023, Fara Gostar Bistoon filed this application seeking review of the cancellation. The bid validity period for all bids expired on 31 January 2023.
Issues
- Whether there is a competent application before the Tribunal?
- Whether the Applicant has locus standi to file the application with the Tribunal?
- Whether the application was filed within time?
- Whether there was a lawful cancellation of the procurement process?
Orders
- The Application is struck out.
- The suspension order dated 25th January 2023 is vacated.
- Each party should bear own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89(5)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89(7)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.89(11)(a)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.91I(1)(b)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 s.91I(1)(c)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations, 2014 Regulation 52
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations, 2014 Regulation 52(5)
Cases cited (5)
- Kafophan and SIAAP Consortium v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries & Youth Alive Uganda (Application No. 31 of 2022)
- World Standardization Certification & Testing Group (Shenzen) Co. Ltd v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Application No. 46 of 2022)
- Kasokosoko Services Ltd v Jinja School of Nursing and Midwifery (Application No. 13 of 2021)
- Kafophan Siap Consortium v Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries & Youth Alive Uganda (Application No. 31 of 2022)
- Application No. 43 of 2022
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.