Wakilii

Guwatudde v Public Procurement Disposal of Public Assets(PPDA) (Civil Application No. 290 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 31 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash PPDA procurement audit report findings and prohibition to restrain enforcement
Decision
Application allowed with orders of certiorari and prohibition granted to quash the PPDA audit report findings and restrain their enforcement against the applicant

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

Held that the PPDA acted illegally and with procedural impropriety by issuing a procurement audit report critical of the applicant without according her a fair hearing as required under sections 7 and 8 of the PPDA Act 2003. The applicant had a legitimate expectation of being heard before being held responsible for flouting procurement procedures. Orders of certiorari and prohibition were granted to quash the report findings and restrain their enforcement.

Outcome

Application allowed with orders of certiorari and prohibition granted to quash the PPDA audit report findings and restrain their enforcement against the applicant

Facts

The applicant, Christine Guwatudde Kintu, was the Permanent Secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister. In April 2020, during the COVID-19 emergency, she signed award letters for emergency procurement of relief food items on 1 April 2020. The Criminal Investigations Directorate requested PPDA's opinion on whether emergency procurement procedures were followed. PPDA issued procurement audit reports on 13 April and 5 June 2020 finding that the applicant contravened sections 26 and 59 of the PPDA Act 2003 by signing award letters before approval by the Accounting Officer and without following proper procedures. The applicant was never summoned or heard by PPDA before these findings were made. She only learned of the reports when they were disclosed in criminal proceedings against her in the Anti-Corruption Court on 27 August 2020. The applicant sought judicial review to quash the findings on grounds that PPDA failed to accord her a fair hearing and acted with procedural impropriety and illegality.

Issues

  1. Whether the process of making the respondent's Procurement Audit Report on Emergency Procurements dated 13th April 2020 and amendment thereof dated 5th June 2020 was procedurally proper.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Order of certiorari issued quashing the findings and recommendations of the respondent contained in the Procurement Audit Report on Emergency Procurements dated 13th April 2020 and the amendment dated 5th June 2020.
  • Order of prohibition issued to restrain the respondent and any other persons, authority or institutions from acting upon, implementing and enforcing the findings and recommendations of the respondent in the Procurement Audit Report on Emergency Procurements dated 13th April 2020 against the applicant.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing
When a public authority exercises investigative functions and makes findings that adversely affect a person by holding them responsible for wrongdoing, that person has a legitimate expectation of being heard before such findings are made, and failure to accord a hearing constitutes procedural impropriety rendering the decision amenable to judicial review.
Legitimate Expectation — Basis and Application
The principle of legitimate expectation is rooted in the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires regularity, predictability and certainty in government's dealings with the public. A legitimate expectation may arise from the conduct of the public authority or from statutory provisions creating a duty to hear affected persons.
Public Procurement — PPDA Functions and Powers
Under section 8 of the PPDA Act 2003, when the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority exercises its functions under section 7, it has the power to summon and examine witnesses and parties concerned on oath and to undertake investigations. The failure to exercise this statutory power to summon affected parties before making adverse findings constitutes an illegality.
Grounds for Review — Procedural Impropriety
Procedural impropriety arises when there is failure to act fairly on the part of the decision-making authority in the process of taking a decision. The unfairness may be in the non-observance of the rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards one affected by the decision, or failure to adhere to procedural rules expressly laid down in statute.
Grounds for Review — Illegality
Illegality as a ground for judicial review arises when the decision-making authority commits an error of law in the process of decision-making. Power or discretion conferred upon a public authority must be exercised reasonably and in accordance with law. The failure to exercise a statutory power as required by law constitutes an illegality.
Remedies — Certiorari and Prohibition
Certiorari lies to quash a decision of a public authority that is unlawful because it was reached without or in excess of jurisdiction, in breach of rules of natural justice, or contrary to law. The effect of certiorari is to restore the status quo ante. An order of prohibition may issue alongside certiorari to restrain enforcement of the quashed decision.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (7)

  • Council of Civil Service Union v Minister of Civil Service [1985] AC 22
  • Twinomuhangi v Kabale District and Others [2006] HCB 130
  • Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904
  • World Point Group Ltd v Attorney General and URA (High Court Civil Suit No. 227 of 2013)
  • Lugolobu Bruce v Tororo District Local Government (HCT-040-CV-MC-0019-2014)
  • Kamurasi & Anor. SCCA No. 3/ 1996
  • Johannesburg Stock Exchange v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd 1988 (3) SA 132

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Guwatudde v Public Procurement Disposal of Public Assets(PPDA) (Civil Application No. 290 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 31 (11 March 2022)
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.