Wakilii

Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company [2025] UGPPDPAAT 27

Tribunal · 2025 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Accounting Officer's decision to cancel procurement and retender
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 struck out the application as time-barred. The Accounting Officer's decision dated July 4, 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 should have filed its application to the Tribunal within ten days from July 3, 2025 (the expiry of the statutory period), making July 14, 2025, the deadline. The application filed on July 25, 2025, was out of time. The Tribunal held that statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be extended, and there can be no estoppel against the law.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred

Facts

Uganda National Oil Company initiated a procurement for Group Personal Accident insurance with Workers Compensation under reference number UNOC/NCONS/24-25/00334 using open domestic bidding. Eleven bidders submitted bids on March 14, 2025. On June 11, 2025, Britam Insurance Uganda Limited was announced as the best evaluated bidder with a contract price of UGX 584,768,461 annually for three years. Goldstar Insurance Company Limited, the applicant, filed an administrative review complaint on June 23, 2025, alleging that Britam had adopted a Political Violence and Terrorism loading below the rate approved by the Insurance Regulatory Authority. The Accounting Officer found merit in the complaint on July 4, 2025, but determined that the terms of reference did not explicitly state the scope of the required PVT cover and decided to retender the procurement. The applicant filed a second administrative review on July 7, 2025, challenging the cancellation decision, and subsequently filed this application to the Tribunal on July 25, 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application is time-barred?
  2. Whether the Application is incompetent for non-service of statutory notice on the Respondent's Accounting Officer?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it did not evaluate and announce the Applicant as the Best Evaluated Bidder following the disqualification of Britam Insurance Uganda Limited?
  4. Whether the Respondent erred in law and fact when it decided to cancel and retender the procurement?
  5. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated July 25, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Accounting Officer's Decision — Mandatory Ten-Day Period
An Accounting Officer's decision made outside the ten-day period prescribed by section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act is null and void and of no legal effect.
Public Procurement — Appeals to Tribunal — Time Limits — Commencement of Time
Where an Accounting Officer fails to make a decision within the statutory ten-day period, an aggrieved bidder must file an application to the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of the period specified in section 106(7), not from the date of any subsequent purported decision.
Public Procurement — Functus Officio — Second Administrative Review
Once an Accounting Officer makes a determination under section 105(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, they become functus officio and cannot revisit or alter that decision. The law does not permit a bidder to submit a second administrative review to the same Accounting Officer who has already rendered a decision on the matter.
Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Mandatory Nature — Tribunal Jurisdiction
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, and failure to act within the stipulated period deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction over the matter.
Estoppel — Estoppel Against the Law — Limitation Periods
There can be no estoppel against the law. A party cannot be estopped from raising a defence of limitation even where they have made representations or acknowledged prior applications.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Lepu Foundation Ltd v Lira City Council (Registry Application No. 14 of 2025)
  • Jilk Construction Company Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Registry Application No. 31 of 2024)
  • Purearc Engineering Company Limited v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (Registry Application No. 17 of 2025)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Raxio Data Centre SMC Limited v Bank of Uganda (Registry Application No. 21 of 2024)
  • Attorney General v Abdul Karim Winyi [1993] UGSC 12

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Uganda National Oil Company 2025 UGPPDPAAT 27 (12 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.