Wakilii

Hellenar's Restaurant and Bar v Parliamentary Commission & 2 Others (MISCELLANEOUS CUASE NO. 329 OF 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 254 · 2019 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of procurement decision and application for contempt of court order
Decision
Contempt application allowed with damages awarded; judicial review application dismissed with direction for respondents to provide explanations to third respondent

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 High Court found that the first and second respondents acted in contempt of court by denying the applicant access to operate the parliamentary canteen contrary to an interim order maintaining the status quo until 11th January 2019. The judicial review application challenging the procurement process was dismissed as the court found no substantive error in the evaluation methodology, directing instead that the first and second respondents respond to queries raised by the third respondent. Damages of UGX 50,000,000 were awarded for contempt. Each party was to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Contempt application allowed with damages awarded; judicial review application dismissed with direction for respondents to provide explanations to third respondent

Facts

The applicant operated the Parliamentary restaurant and bar under a contract that expired on 31st December 2018. The first respondent conducted a procurement process for a new operator, issuing a bid notice on 12th March 2018. Four bidders submitted bids and Romeo's Restaurant was found to be the best evaluated bidder. On 13th June 2018, a best evaluated bidder notice was issued. The applicant complained to the second respondent alleging bias in the procurement process and that Romeo's Restaurant lacked requisite experience. The second respondent conducted an administrative review and on 9th August 2018 found the complaint was not based on any substantive breach. The applicant sought recourse with the third respondent, which found the application was filed out of time. On 21st December 2018, the court issued an interim order maintaining the applicant's status quo in operating the parliamentary canteen until 11th January 2019. However, the first and second respondents denied the applicant access after 31st December 2018.

Issues

  1. Whether the first respondent acted unlawfully by deviating from the evaluation methodology and criteria set out in the bid solicitation documents.
  2. Whether the second respondent breached the applicant's right to a fair hearing by condemning it without according it an opportunity to be heard.
  3. Whether the third respondent acted unlawfully in refusing to handle the applicant's administrative review on grounds that it was time barred.
  4. Whether the respondents were in contempt of the court order dated 21st December 2018.
  5. Whether the applicant is entitled to damages for contempt of court.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2019 (contempt application) is allowed.
  • Damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded to the applicant for contempt of court.
  • The first and/or second respondent shall give explanations to the queries raised by the third respondent in letter referenced PPDA/PSC/104 dated 13th September 2018.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 329 of 2018 (judicial review application) is dismissed.
  • The respondents are warned to desist from engaging in the conduct of disobeying court orders.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Alternative Remedies — Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies
Where a statutory body throws out an applicant's claim on grounds of being time barred without addressing it substantively on the merits, the alternative remedy of appealing to a statutory tribunal would not yield substantive justice, and as an exceptional case, the applicant may properly bring judicial review proceedings without first exhausting the statutory appellate mechanism.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Obedience to Court Orders
A party who knows of a court order cannot be permitted to disobey it regardless of whether that party regards the order as null, valid, regular or irregular. The order must be complied with in totality in all circumstances by the party concerned, subject to that party's right to challenge the order by way of revision, review or appeal.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements of Proof
To prove contempt of court, three elements must be established: the existence of a lawful order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and the potential contemnor's failure to comply with or disobedience of the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Interim Orders — Enforcement
Where a court issues an unequivocal interim order maintaining the status quo of an applicant's operation until a specified date, respondents who deny the applicant access and operation before that date act in contempt of the court order, notwithstanding any contractual expiry dates.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Evaluation Methodology — Deviation from Bid Documents
A deviation from the evaluation methodology and criteria set out in standard bidding documents constitutes an irregularity and a contravention of section 71(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, but the determination of such technical errors is within the preserve of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority.
Civil Procedure — Damages — Judicial Review — Award of Damages for Contempt
Under Rule 8 of the Judicial Review Rules, damages may be awarded in judicial review proceedings where the applicant has included a claim for damages in the motion and the court is satisfied that damages could have been awarded if the claim had been made in an action begun at the time of making the application.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (7)

  • Rosemary Nalwadda v Uganda Aids Commission (HCMA No. 0045 of 2010)
  • Council of Civil Service union v. Minister for the civil Service [1885] Ac 374
  • Semwo Construction Company v Rukungiri District Local Government (HCMC No. 30 of 2010)
  • Stream Aviation Ltd v Civil Aviation Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 175 of 2008)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • CHUK CREMET (1 Corp Jemp 342)
  • Megha Industries (U) Ltd v Comform Uganda Limited (HCMC No. 21 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hellenar's Restaurant and Bar v Parliamentary Commission & 2 Others (MISCELLANEOUS CUASE NO. 329 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 254 (3 July 2019)
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.