Geo Jet Placements Limited v Mbarara City [2026] UGPPDPAAT 2
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 incompetent for being filed out of time. The applicant filed directly with the Tribunal on 19 December 2025, claiming the Accounting Officer had a conflict of interest under section 106(9) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. However, the statutory ten-day window for direct filing ran from 5 December to 15 December 2025. The Tribunal held that the timelines under the Act are strict and cannot be extended, and late filing deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.
Outcome
Application struck out for being filed out of time
Facts
Mbarara City initiated a procurement for revenue collection from various sources including Central Market Toilets under Procurement Reference No. MBAR 609/SCRV/2025/2026/00001 (Lot 7) on 18 June 2025. Six bidders submitted proposals on 27 June 2025. On 10 September 2025, Muhangi Cathbert was named best evaluated bidder; the applicant was eliminated at preliminary examination stage. The applicant filed Registry Application No. 36 of 2025, which the Tribunal allowed on 28 October 2025, directing re-evaluation. On 17 November 2025, the respondent issued a Notice of No-Best Evaluated Bidder, cancelling the procurement. The applicant received this notice via WhatsApp on 4 December 2025. On 11 December 2025, the applicant wrote to the Accounting Officer expressing dissatisfaction and seeking guidance on filing fees, but alleged no Payment Reference Number was generated. The applicant filed directly with the Tribunal on 19 December 2025, claiming the Accounting Officer had a conflict of interest.
Issues
- Whether the application before the Tribunal is competent?
- Whether the Respondent's cancellation of the procurement was lawful?
- Whether there are available remedies to the Parties?
Orders
- The Application is struck out.
- Each Party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap. 205 s.103(1)-(3)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap. 205 s.106(9)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap. 205 s.115(2)(c)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap. 205 s.115(3)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Administrative Review) Regulations, 2023 reg.9(5)
Cases cited (2)
- Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak DLG (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
- Arapai Market Traders and Vendors' Association Ltd v Serere District Local Government (Application No. 43 of 2025)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.