Wakilii

Jilk Construction Company Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Application 31 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGPPDPAAT 33 · 2024 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 for being filed out of time; procurement process may continue

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 incompetent for being filed out of time. The Accounting Officer's decision communicated on 24 May 2024 was made beyond the statutory ten-day period and was therefore no decision at all. The applicant ought to have filed its application to the Tribunal by 27 May 2024, but filed on 6 June 2024. Timelines in procurement statutes are mandatory and the Tribunal has no power to extend time. The application was struck out.

Outcome

Application struck out for being filed out of time; procurement process may continue

Facts

Kira Municipal Council advertised a procurement for construction of selected roads in three lots. Jilk Construction Company Limited bid for Lot 3. On 3 May 2024, the Respondent issued a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder naming China Communication Construction Company Ltd as the best bidder and disqualifying the Applicant on grounds of insufficient contract experience and inadequate ESHS compliance. The Applicant filed a complaint with the Accounting Officer on 6 May 2024. The Accounting Officer communicated his decision on 22 May 2024, received by the Applicant on 24 May 2024, dismissing the complaint. Meanwhile, China Communication Construction Company Ltd successfully challenged the award in Lot 2, resulting in a revised Best Evaluated Bidder Notice for Lot 3 on 23 May 2024 naming Sterling Civil Engineering Ltd as the best bidder. The Applicant filed this application with the Tribunal on 6 June 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant application before the Tribunal is competent?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it omitted or refused to avail comparative tenders requested for by the Applicant, for purposes of administrative review?
  3. Whether the Respondent erred when it disqualified the Applicant's bid?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Respondent may continue with the procurement process to its logical conclusion.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated June 7, 2024, is vacated.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Statutory Timelines — Accounting Officer's Decision
Where an Accounting Officer makes and communicates an administrative review decision beyond the ten-day period prescribed by Section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, such decision is made in breach of the law and is no decision at all.
Public Procurement — Appeals to Tribunal — Time for Filing
Where an Accounting Officer does not make or communicate a decision within the period specified in Section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003, an aggrieved bidder must file an application to the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of the period within which the Accounting Officer ought to have made and communicated the administrative review decision.
Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Section 91I(1)(b)
Access to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal pursuant to Section 91I(1)(b) is not available to a person who participated in a procurement process as a bidder; such persons must proceed under Section 91I(1)(a).
Public Procurement — Computation of Time — Excluded Days
In computing time for filing an application to the Tribunal, where the last day of the period falls on a day that is not a working day, that day is an excluded day and the next following working day becomes the last day for filing.
Public Procurement — Tribunal Jurisdiction — Mandatory Timelines
Timelines within the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory. There is no enabling provision that accords the Tribunal power to enlarge or extend time. Once a party fails to move within the time set by law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is extinguished as far as the matter is concerned.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (7)

  • Clear View Investments Ltd v Mbarara University School of Science and Technology (Application No. 29 of 2024)
  • Mbarara City and MBJ Technologies Obon v Infrastructure Development JV (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2021)
  • Super Taste Limited v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2021)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (Civil Appeal No. OS of 2024)
  • Achelis Uganda Ltd v Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (Application No. 25 of 2024)
  • Gat Consults Limited v National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Application No. 30 of 2021)
  • EAA Co. Ltd v UNBS (Application No. 21 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jilk Construction Company Limited v Kira Municipal Council (Application 31 of 2024) 2024 UGPPDPAAT 33 (27 June 2024)
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.