Wakilii

Fueless Technologies Limited v Mbale City Council (Application 13 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 14 · 2024 Application Struck Out 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 lack of competence

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 locus standi. The applicant had not filed a formal administrative review complaint with the Accounting Officer as required under section 89(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003. The letter of inquiry sent by the applicant did not constitute an administrative review complaint and therefore the applicant could not invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 91I of the Act.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of competence

Facts

Mbale City Council initiated a tender for collection of revenue from street parking for financial year 2023/2024. Fueless Technologies Ltd was determined as the best evaluated bidder at Ugx 36,193,900 per month. The Best Evaluated Bidder Notice was displayed on 5 January 2024. However, Medlid Contractors Ltd, the unsuccessful bidder, filed a civil suit in the High Court and obtained injunctive relief preventing the Respondent from executing a contract. On 8 February 2024, the Applicant wrote to the City Clerk inquiring about the status of the procurement and why no contract had been signed. At a meeting on 20 February 2024, the Applicant was informed of the High Court injunction and asked to extend its bid validity for 120 days. Dissatisfied, the Applicant filed this application with the Tribunal on 23 February 2024 seeking review of the Respondent's decision not to issue a contract.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a competent application before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it did not issue a contract to the Applicant?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Procurement Appeals — Locus Standi — Requirement for Prior Administrative Review Complaint
An applicant seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal under section 91I(a) and (c) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 must first have filed a formal administrative review complaint before the Accounting Officer as required by section 89(1) of the Act and Regulation 4(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Administrative Review) Regulations 2023.
Administrative Law — Procurement Appeals — Distinction Between Inquiry Letter and Administrative Review Complaint
A letter of inquiry requesting guidance on the status of a procurement process does not constitute an administrative review complaint under section 89(1) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003 and therefore does not confer locus standi to file an application before the Tribunal.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Duty of Tribunal to Inquire into Competence of Application
A tribunal is duty bound to inquire into the existence of facts necessary to establish its jurisdiction before proceeding to determine the merits of an application, as jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • World Standardization Certification & Testing Group (Shenzen) Co. Ltd v Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Application No. 46 of 2022)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (Application No. 33 of 2023)
  • Fara Gostar Bistoon v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Application No. 2 of 2023)
  • Kafophan and SIAAP Consortium v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries & Youth Alive Uganda (Application No. 31 of 2022)
  • Tumwebaze Stephen Kiba v Mbarara City and 2 others (Application No. 21 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fueless Technologies Limited v Mbale City Council (Application 13 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 14 (20 March 2024)
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.