Wakilii

Globe World Engineering (U) Limited v Jinja City Council (Application 20 of 2023)

Tribunal · [2023] UGPPDPAAT 21 · 2023 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement cancellation decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

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 it lacked jurisdiction to review the cancellation of the procurement process because the cancellation was effected in accordance with section 75 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003. The Contracts Committee had approved the cancellation before any contract was awarded, and the circumstances giving rise to the procurement requirement had significantly changed. The Application was struck out.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Jinja City Council initiated a procurement for revenue collection from Hotel Tax in Southern Division. Five bidders submitted bids. Between July 24 and 26, 2023, the Respondent published notices of best evaluated bidders for 30 revenue centres but excluded information on the impugned procurement. The Applicant complained to the Accounting Officer on August 18, 2023, about delays in evaluation. On August 21, 2023, the Respondent informed all bidders that the procurement had been cancelled with Contracts Committee approval on July 27, 2023. The Applicant filed an application for review with the Tribunal on August 31, 2023. The Contracts Committee had approved cancellation because the assessment of hotel tax in Northern Division was not yet conducted and it would be prudent to have one tenderer manage both divisions. The procurement action file was with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority during the proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application?
  2. Whether the Application is competent?
  3. What reliefs are available to the Applicant?
  4. Whether the Application should be heard without a response from the Respondent being on record?

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated August 31, 2023 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Cancellation of Procurement Process
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review a decision by a procuring and disposing entity to cancel a procurement process in accordance with section 75 of the PPDA Act 2003, but has jurisdiction to inquire into the decision-making process leading to the cancellation to determine whether there is a valid cancellation within the meaning of section 75.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Cancellation — Conditions for Valid Cancellation
A procuring and disposing entity may cancel a procurement process before a contract is awarded to the best evaluated bidder where there is a significant change in the technical details or circumstances of the procurement requirement, or where the circumstances that gave rise to the request for procurement change significantly, provided the cancellation is approved by the Contracts Committee.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Exclusion from Review
Once the Tribunal determines as a fact that a cancellation was effected in accordance with section 75 of the PPDA Act 2003, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to inquire into the reasons for the cancellation.
Civil Procedure — Default — Burden of Proof — Undefended Applications
An applicant before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal is not automatically entitled to the remedies sought simply on the ground that the application is undefended. Failure by the respondent to file a response is not a waiver of the legal burden imposed on an applicant to prove their case to the required standard.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Impiger Technologies Pvt Ltd v Higher Education Students Financing Board (Application No. 45 of 2023)
  • Seyani Brothers and Co. (U) Ltd & Parbat Siyani Construction Ltd Joint Venture v Directorate of Govt Analytical Lab (Application No. 40 of 2022)
  • Kingdom Kampala Ltd v Judicial Service Commission (Application No. 34 of 2022)
  • Impiger Technologies Pvt Ltd v Higher Education Students Financing Board (Application No. 25 of 2022)
  • Preg-Tech Communications Limited v Uganda Police Force (Application No. 32 of 2021)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v UNRA & PPDA (Application No. 3 of 2017)
  • Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential Ltd and Teddy Ssezi Cheeye (Civil Suit No. 612 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Globe World Engineering (U) Limited v Jinja City Council (Application 20 of 2023) 2023 UGPPDPAAT 21 (21 September 2023)
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.