Wakilii

Geo Jet Placements Limited v Mbarara City [2025] UGPPDPAAT 48

Tribunal · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of administrative review decision rejecting bid for alleged non-compliance
Decision
Matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation of bids within 10 working days

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 held that a procuring entity must request missing eligibility documents through clarification where such documents were specified in the bidding document, before disqualifying a bid. The Respondent erred by disqualifying the Applicant's bid for failure to attach a Power of Attorney without first requesting it under Regulation 17(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023. The procurement was remitted for re-evaluation.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Respondent for re-evaluation of bids within 10 working days

Facts

Mbarara City initiated a procurement for revenue collection from various sources including Central Market Toilets. Geo Jet Placements Ltd submitted a bid on 27 June 2025. On 10 September 2025, the Respondent issued a notice declaring Muhangi Cathbert as the best evaluated bidder and eliminating the Applicant at the preliminary examination stage for failing to submit a registered Power of Attorney. The Applicant lodged a complaint on 22 September 2025, maintaining it had included the Power of Attorney and that the Evaluation Committee should have sought clarification. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on 2 October 2025, stating the Power of Attorney was not attached, the bid lacked page numbering, and the countersigned table of contents did not list a Power of Attorney. The Applicant filed this application on 13 October 2025 seeking review of the administrative decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it disqualified the Applicant's bid for omission to attach powers of attorney?
  2. Whether there are available remedies to the Parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Best Evaluated Bidder Notice dated September 10, 2025 set aside.
  • Administrative review decision of the Respondent's Accounting Officer issued on 2nd October 2025 set aside.
  • Respondent ordered to re-evaluate the bids in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the bidding document, and the law.
  • Re-evaluation to be conducted within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • Respondent ordered to refund the administrative review fees paid by the Applicant.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated October 14, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Evaluation of Bids — Omission of Eligibility Documents — Duty to Request Clarification
Where a bidding document specifies a Power of Attorney as an eligibility document and a bidder omits to attach it, the procuring entity is obligated under Regulation 17(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023 to request the missing document through clarification before disqualifying the bid, provided the document was valid at the bid submission deadline.
Public Procurement — Material Deviation — Power of Attorney as Eligibility Document
A missing Power of Attorney listed as an eligibility document in the bidding document does not automatically render a bid invalid. The procuring entity must first seek clarification and allow the bidder to provide the missing document in accordance with Regulation 17(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023.
Public Procurement Regulations — Evaluation Regulations Must Be Read as a Whole
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations must be read as a whole and not in isolation. Regulations 16(1)(b) and (2) concerning administrative compliance must be read together with Regulations 17(3)(d) and 17(6) which permit a procuring entity to request additional documents that were omitted from a bid where such omission does not amount to a material deviation.
Public Procurement — Precedent — Distinguishing Earlier Tribunal Decisions
The decision in Transac Ltd v PPDA & Ministry of Works and Transport (Application No. 10 of 2017) is distinguishable from cases where the Evaluation Committee failed to request a missing eligibility document. Under Regulations 17(3)(d) and 17(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, 2023, the Evaluation Committee is explicitly empowered to request a bidder to submit any eligibility document omitted at bid submission.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.6(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.7(4)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.16(1)(b)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.16(2)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.17(2)(a)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.17(3)(d)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.17(6)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.17(7)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.18(1)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.18(2)(f)
  • Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations, S.I. No. 103 of 2023 reg.18(4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Kuuku Amos & 2 ors v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 002 of 2024)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
  • Transac Ltd v PPDA & Ministry of Works and Transport (Application No. 10 of 2017)
  • Gibb (Pty) Ltd in Joint Venture with Acmirs Consulting Ltd v Ministry of Works and Transport & Another (Application No. 16 of 2025)
  • D&D Law Publishing House Ltd v Electoral Commission (Application No. 35 of 2025)
  • Juan Carlos Surace Limited v Masindi District Local Government (Application No. 12 of 2024)
  • Maleka Engineering and Construction Company Limited and Another v Kira Municipal Council (Application No. 30 of 2024)
  • Emtec Technical Services Ltd v Uganda High Commission, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Application No. 5 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Geo Jet Placements Limited v Mbarara City 2025 UGPPDPAAT 48 (28 October 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.