Wakilii

GIBB (Pty) Limited in Joint Venture with ACMIRS Consulting Limited v Ministry of Works and Transport and Another (Application No 32 of 2025)

Tribunal · [2025] UGPPDPAAT 43 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement evaluation decision following administrative review dismissal
Decision
Application dismissed; procurement evaluation upheld

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 dismissed the application challenging the procurement evaluation. The Accounting Officer's administrative review decision issued on September 12, 2025, was null for being communicated outside the statutory 10-day deadline, but the Tribunal invoked jurisdiction under section 106(8) to hear the matter. The Tribunal found that the Respondents completed the re-evaluation within the 10 working days ordered in a prior decision. The Evaluation Committee properly exercised its discretion in scoring the Applicant's technical proposal, and the Tribunal found no manifest error or deviation from the RFP criteria to warrant intervention.

Outcome

Application dismissed; procurement evaluation upheld

Facts

The Ministry of Works and Transport initiated a procurement for consultancy services for a Standard Gauge Railway project. Fourteen bidders submitted proposals by March 21, 2025. Following technical evaluation, the Applicant scored 77.29% against a minimum qualifying score of 80% and was disqualified. The Applicant requested a debrief on August 29, 2025, and filed an administrative review complaint on September 1, 2025. The Accounting Officer dismissed the complaint on September 12, 2025. The Applicant then filed this application with the Tribunal on September 19, 2025, challenging the evaluation process and alleging that the Respondents deviated from the RFP criteria, misrepresented the Applicant's qualifications, and applied undisclosed criteria inconsistently.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents erred in law and fact when they issued an administrative review decision on September 12, 2025.
  2. Whether the Respondents erred in law and fact when they evaluated the bids outside the 10 working days ordered by the Tribunal.
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it disqualified the Applicant's bid at the detailed technical evaluation stage.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Tribunal's September 22, 2025, suspension order is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Statutory Time Limits
Under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and regulation 8 of the Administrative Review Regulations 2023, an Accounting Officer must make and communicate a written decision on a complaint within ten days of receipt. A decision communicated outside this deadline is null and has no legal effect.
Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Failure to Decide Within Statutory Period
Where an Accounting Officer fails to make and communicate a decision within the statutory ten-day period, the bidder may apply directly to the Tribunal under section 106(8) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, and the Tribunal gains jurisdiction under section 115(1)(a) to hear the case.
Public Procurement — Evaluation Committee Discretion — Standard of Review
The Accounting Officer, Contracts Committee, and Evaluation Committee have statutory discretion in the procurement process. Assigning marks during evaluation is a discretionary task, and the Tribunal will not interfere with or substitute its judgment for that of a properly constituted Evaluation Committee unless there is a clear error, deviation from the RFP criteria, or breach of law.
Public Procurement — Tribunal Review Function — Limits of Intervention
The Tribunal's role in reviewing procurement decisions is not to replace the judgment of procurement entities but to assess whether the processes and decisions adhere to the law, whether the relevant rules and RFP were followed, whether the factual basis is correct, and whether there is a clear error. Without such defects, the Tribunal should not overturn a decision merely because it disagrees with the procuring entity.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Rural Digital Media Ltd v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Application No. 29 of 2025)
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company (Application No. 18 of 2025)
  • Abasamia Hwolerane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Globe World Engineering (U) Ltd v Mbale City Council (Application No. 21 of 2021)
  • Egis Road Operations SA v UNRA and China Communications Construction Company Ltd & CCCC Investment Company Ltd Consortium (Application No. 11 of 2020)
  • Doshnut Uganda Ltd v Ministry of Water & Environment (Application No. 47 of 2024)
  • Engineering Solutions (U) Ltd v Ministry of Water & Environment (Application No. 24 of 2021)
  • Registry Application No. 16 of 2025

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 (Application No 32 of 2025) 2025 UGPPDPAAT 43 (10 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.