Wakilii

Fleco Holding Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment [2026] UGPPDPAAT 6

Tribunal · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for being filed outside the statutory timeframe

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 time-barred. The Accounting Officer failed to render an administrative review decision within the statutory ten-day period prescribed under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. The applicant was required to file with the Tribunal within ten days from the expiry of that period but filed one day late. Statutory time limits in procurement law are substantive and cannot be extended; late filing deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed outside the statutory timeframe

Facts

The Ministry of Water and Environment commenced procurement for construction of a water supply system in Zombo District. Eighteen firms submitted bids. Gets Technical Services Ltd was declared the Best Evaluated Bidder. Fleco Holding Limited's bid was rejected at the financial comparison stage on grounds of arithmetic errors constituting a material deviation. Fleco lodged an administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer on 13 January 2026. The Branch Manager of the Water & Sanitation Development Facility-North responded on 13 January 2026, stating the evaluation report was maintained and demanding administrative review fees of UGX 5,000,000,000. Fleco paid UGX 5,000,000 on 23 January 2026. The Accounting Officer purported to make a decision on 5 February 2026, outside the statutory ten-day period. Fleco filed an application with the Tribunal on 3 February 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application was filed within the statutory timeframe?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred in eliminating the Applicant's bid on the ground that it contained arithmetic errors which were a material deviation?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred when it conducted a re-evaluation of the bids?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated 4th February 2026 is vacated.
  • Each Party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Jurisdiction
Statutory time limits under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are matters of substantive law, not mere procedural technicalities, and must be strictly complied with. Late filing deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction and the timelines cannot be extended.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Time Limits for Accounting Officer Decision
Where an Accounting Officer fails to render an administrative review decision within the ten-day period prescribed under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, any decision made thereafter is null and void. The aggrieved bidder must apply to the Tribunal within ten days from the expiry of the statutory period, not from receipt of a belated decision.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Delegation of Powers — Administrative Review
An Accounting Officer may delegate certain procurement functions under section 41(a)(ii) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, but administrative review powers must be expressly delegated. A letter purporting to decide an administrative review complaint issued by an officer without delegated authority is not a valid administrative review decision.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak DLG (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Cementers Uganda Ltd v National Social Security Fund (Application No. 1 of 2026)
  • Geo Jet Placements Ltd v Mbarara City (Application No. 45 of 2025)
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 22 of 2025)
  • Xinjiang and Beijing Shine Technology Consortium v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 37 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fleco Holding Limited v Ministry of Water and Environment 2026 UGPPDPAAT 6 (23 February 2026)
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.