Wakilii

Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Bank of Uganda [2025] UGPPDPAAT 28

Tribunal · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out as time-barred

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 application was time-barred and struck it out. The Accounting Officer's administrative review decision dated 29 July 2025 was made outside the statutory ten-day period prescribed by section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act and was therefore null and void. The applicant's challenge, filed on 8 August 2025, was one day late under section 115(2)(c), which requires applications to be filed within ten days from the date of expiry of the period specified in section 106(7). The Tribunal held that limitation statutes are strict and inflexible, and non-compliance renders the application incompetent regardless of merits.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred

Facts

Bank of Uganda initiated a restricted bidding procurement for workers' compensation insurance cover on 15 May 2025, inviting 20 non-life insurance firms. Seven bidders submitted proposals by 2 June 2025. On 4 July 2025, Bank of Uganda issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder declaring Sanlam General Insurance Uganda Limited the winner with a contract price of UGX 3,198,406,022. Goldstar Insurance Company Limited (the applicant) was ranked second with a weighted average score of 66%. The applicant sought clarification on 7 July 2025 and filed an administrative review complaint on 16 July 2025, alleging that the best evaluated bidder contravened insurance pricing regulations. The Accounting Officer issued a decision on 29 July 2025 upholding the award. The applicant filed an application before the Tribunal on 8 August 2025 challenging the procurement decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant Application is time barred?
  2. Whether the Application is incompetent due to failure to give notice to the Respondent's Accounting Officer?
  3. Whether the Respondent acted unlawfully by introducing new grounds for eliminating the Applicant's proposal during the review of the Applicant's complaint?
  4. Whether the Applicant's proposal covered pregnant staff?
  5. Whether the Best Evaluated Bidder's proposal contravened the Insurance (Minimum Premium and Maximum Commission Rates) Regulations 2023 by offering a higher benefit for the child and pregnancy policy extension exceeding UGX 2,000,000 without charging an additional premium?
  6. Whether the Applicant's bid was non-compliant with the Insurance (Minimum Premium and Maximum Commission Rates) Regulations 2023, specifically regarding the coverage of pregnant staff, the proposed premium rate of UGX 3,198,406,014, and the quotation of benefits exceeding the maximum per-staff limits for funeral and medical expenses as stipulated in Schedule 1 of the Regulations?
  7. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated August 8, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Limitation Periods — Computation of Time for Filing Appeals
Where an Accounting Officer is required by section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act to issue a written decision within ten days of receiving a complaint, and the last day of that period falls on a Saturday, the final day for making and communicating the decision is the next working day, which is Monday, in accordance with the principle that official Government working days are Monday to Friday and it would be contrary to fairness to require an Accounting Officer to make and communicate a decision on a non-working day.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Administrative Review — Decisions Made Outside Statutory Timelines
An administrative review decision made by an Accounting Officer outside the prescribed statutory timelines under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act is null and void, contrary to law, and of no legal effect.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Periods — Computation of Time — Event of Expiry
When a fixed period is prescribed by law for filing an application, the event of expiry occurs at the end of the last day of the legally prescribed timeframe, not on the day after the last day. A limitation period expires on the final day of the legally prescribed timeframe for filing a case.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Limitation Periods — Strict Application
The timelines prescribed under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and serve a clear legal purpose. The Tribunal has no authority to extend or vary these timelines. If a party fails to act within the stipulated period, the Tribunal loses jurisdiction over the matter. A limitation statute is strict in nature and inflexible and is not concerned with the merits of the case. Non-compliance with the limitation period renders the application a nullity.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Duty of Bidder Where Accounting Officer Fails to Decide Within Statutory Period
A bidder should not wait to receive a decision of an Accounting Officer once the ten days prescribed in section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act have elapsed. Such a bidder should act with haste and immediately proceed to file an application before the Tribunal within ten days.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Frida B. Kwikiriza v Buliisa District Local Government (Application No. 28 of 2022)
  • Gold Star Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company (Application No. 18 of 2025)
  • BUU-Lepu Foundation Ltd v Lira City Council (Application No. 14 of 2025)
  • Maclhvani International SA v Attorney General (SCCA No. 23 of 2010)
  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1956] 1 KB 73
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Ltd v National Medical Stores (Application No. 014 of 2021)
  • Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd & Ors vs CEO of the South African Social Security Agency

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Bank of Uganda 2025 UGPPDPAAT 28 (27 August 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.