JV AGT SP and 2 HUCHENG DING CHENG Machinery Company Limited v Private Sector Foundation Uganda (Application No 29 of 2022)
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 on grounds of time bar. The Accounting Officer's administrative review decision was made and communicated outside the statutory ten-day period, rendering it of no legal consequence. The applicant was required to file with the Tribunal within ten days of the expiry of that period but filed eleven days late. The Tribunal held that statutory time limits in procurement law are mandatory and strictly enforced, with no power to extend time.
Outcome
Application struck out as time barred
Facts
The Respondent initiated a procurement for supply, delivery and installation of kitchen equipment for the Uganda Hotel and Tourism Training Institute. On 9 August 2022, M/S Bivid (U) Ltd was declared the best evaluated bidder. The Applicant's bid was disqualified on grounds that the contracts cited as similar experience did not meet the similarity requirement in terms of value, scope and complexity. The Applicant applied for administrative review on 19 August 2022. The Accounting Officer's decision dismissing the complaint was dated 24 September 2022 but received on 7 September 2022. The Applicant filed with the Tribunal on 19 September 2022.
Issues
- Whether the Application is brought against a wrong party?
- Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the Application?
- Whether the Application is time barred?
- Whether the Respondent erred by holding that none of the contracts submitted by the Applicant met the similarity requirement in terms of scope, value, nature and complexity?
Orders
- Application struck out.
- Tribunal's suspension order dated 20 September 2022 vacated.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.4(1)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.89(7)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.89(8)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.91(1)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act s.91(2)(b)
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016 reg.36
- Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Evaluation) Regulations reg.6(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 15
Cases cited (9)
- Arua Municipal Council v Arua United Transporters Sacco (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2017)
- Lira Regional Hospital v PPDA (Application No. 6 of 2014)
- Phenehas Agaba v Swift Freight International Ltd (HC CS No. 143 of 2000)
- Dott Services Limited & Hes Infra Private Limited JV v Ministry of Water and Environment (Application No. 25 of 2021)
- Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2017)
- Vision Scientific & Engineering Limited v Makerere University (Applications No. 26 and 27 of 2022)
- Mugabi David v Sembabule District Local Government (Application No. 24 of 2022)
- Mugerwa Fred v Sembabule District Local Government (Application No. 23 of 2022)
- Sanlam General Insurance v UNRA (Application No. 29 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.