Wakilii

Gibb (PTY) Limited in Joint Venture with Acmirs consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and Another [2025] UGPPDPAAT 19

Tribunal · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision following administrative review dismissal
Decision
Matter remitted to Respondents for re-evaluation 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 the Respondents erred in disqualifying the Applicant for non-submission of registered joint venture powers of attorney, as these were eligibility documents that should have been requested through clarification under regulation 17(6) of the Evaluation Regulations 2023. The Tribunal found that the bidding documents did not mandate submission of tax clearance certificates at bid submission stage, and non-submission was not grounds for automatic disqualification during preliminary examination. The procurement was remitted for re-evaluation in accordance with the law.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Respondents for re-evaluation within 10 working days

Facts

The Ministry of Works and Transport initiated procurement for consultancy services for a Standard Gauge Railway project using open domestic bidding. Fourteen bidders submitted proposals by March 21, 2025. Following technical evaluation, the Respondents issued a notice on June 2, 2025 indicating that the Applicant's bid was unsuccessful at the preliminary stage for not having submitted a joint venture power of attorney and tax clearance for ACMIRS. The Applicant had submitted an unregistered special power of attorney dated March 12, 2025 from ACMIRS appointing Andre van der Walt, and a letter dated March 21, 2025 stating that documents had been submitted to the Registrar of Documents but certified copies had not yet been issued. The Applicant lodged an administrative review complaint on June 5, 2025, which was dismissed on June 12, 2025. The Applicant then filed this application on June 26, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents erred in law and fact when it disqualified the Applicant's proposal for non-submission of registered joint venture powers of attorney?
  2. Whether the Respondents erred in law and fact when they disqualified the Applicant's proposal for non-submission of a tax clearance certificate for ACMIRS Consulting Limited?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Notice Following Evaluation of Consultancy Services dated June 2, 2025 set aside.
  • Respondents ordered to re-evaluate the proposals in a manner not inconsistent with this decision, the request for proposals, and the law.
  • Re-evaluation to be conducted within 10 working days from the date of this decision.
  • Respondents to refund the Applicant's administrative review fees.
  • Tribunal's Suspension Order dated June 27, 2025 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Preliminary Examination — Eligibility Documents — Power of Attorney
A missing eligibility document such as a power of attorney is not fatal to a bid where the document existed as at the date of bid submission deadline, and the procuring entity is obligated to request the bidder to submit the document through clarification under regulation 17(6) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations 2023.
Public Procurement — Registration of Documents — Effect on Validity
Mere registration of a document under the Registration of Documents Act does not confer validity on the document. An unregistered power of attorney that existed at the date of bid submission deadline may be requested through clarification and subsequently registered.
Public Procurement — Board Resolution Distinguished from Power of Attorney
An extract from a board resolution is a mere record of a board decision and is not equivalent to an actual power of attorney by which a company appoints an agent to bind the company.
Public Procurement — Tax Clearance Certificates — Evaluation Criteria
Where bidding documents do not specify tax clearance certificates as mandatory documentation to be submitted at bid submission stage, non-submission of such certificates is not grounds for automatic disqualification during preliminary examination. Tax compliance may be verified at any time as part of due diligence under regulation 26 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Procuring and Disposing Entities) Regulations 2023.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Criteria — Strict Construction
No evaluation criteria other than that stated in the bidding documents shall be considered, as provided by section 76(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act Cap. 205. A procuring entity cannot impose mandatory requirements not specified in the bidding documents.
Public Procurement — Post-Deadline Submissions — Clarification Procedure
A bidder has no right on its own volition to submit documents after the proposal submission deadline. A proposal can only be evaluated on its contents, and additional documents can only be submitted and considered under clarification or due diligence if initiated by the Evaluation Committee under the relevant provisions.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Emtec Technical Services Ltd v The Uganda High Commission, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (Application No. 5 of 2025)
  • Kafeero v Turyagenda (1980) HCB 122
  • Lira Smoked and Silver Fish Vendors Cooperative Society Ltd v Lira City Council (Application No. 5 of 2023)
  • Orungo Market Vendors Association v Amuria District Local Government (Application No. 41 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gibb (PTY) Limited in Joint Venture with Acmirs consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and Another 2025 UGPPDPAAT 19 (17 July 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.