Wakilii

JV KADAC GLOBALTEC v Uganda Prisons Service (Application No 4 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 4 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out; procurement may proceed

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 incompetent on two grounds: the application was filed out of time under section 91(2)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, and the applicant lacked locus standi because the entity that applied to the Accounting Officer for administrative review was not the same entity that filed the application before the Tribunal.

Outcome

Application struck out; procurement may proceed

Facts

Uganda Prisons Service issued a call for bids for the design, construction, supply, delivery, installation, and commissioning of a grain processing and storage plant at three prison farms under restricted bidding. JV KADAC-GLOBALTEC submitted a bid but was disqualified for three reasons: providing an expired income tax clearance certificate, proposing primary equipment from different manufacturers, and failing to demonstrate access to key equipment. On 17 December 2021, Kadac International Ltd (one member of the joint venture) applied to the Accounting Officer for administrative review. The Accounting Officer issued a decision on 4 January 2022 rejecting the complaint. On 19 January 2022, JV KADAC-GLOBALTEC applied to the Tribunal for administrative review.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a competent application before the Tribunal
  2. Whether the application was filed within the statutory time limit
  3. Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application

Orders

  • Application struck out as incompetent.
  • Entity may continue with the procurement to its logical conclusion.
  • Tribunal's suspension order dated January 20, 2022 vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance
Under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, an Accounting Officer must make and communicate a decision on a complaint within ten days of receipt. A decision issued outside this period is a blatant breach of the law and is null and void.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Appeals to Tribunal — Time Limits
Where an Accounting Officer fails to make a decision within the statutory period, a bidder may apply to the Tribunal within ten days from the date of expiry of the period within which the Accounting Officer should have communicated the decision. An application filed after this period is time-barred and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Joint Ventures
Where a bid is submitted by a joint venture with a nominated authorised representative, only that joint venture entity acting through its authorised representative has locus standi to apply for administrative review. A member of the joint venture applying in its own name has no locus standi.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Competence of Application — Identity of Applicant
An application to the Tribunal is incompetent where the entity that applied to the Accounting Officer for administrative review is different from the entity applying to the Tribunal, even if both entities are related members of the same joint venture.
Administrative Law — Statutory Interpretation — Mandatory Provisions
Provisions in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and not directory. Non-compliance with statutory requirements makes proceedings fatal. A court has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period laid down by statute.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Elite Chemicals Limited v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Application No. 1 of 2022)
  • VCON Construction (U) Limited v Makerere University (Application No. 3 of 2022)
  • Super Taste Ltd v Bank of Uganda (Application No. 33 of 2021)
  • Apa Insurance Uganda Limited v Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 2 of 2022)
  • Galleria in Africa Ltd v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (Civil Appeal 2017)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Twenty Third Century Systems PVT Ltd v PPDA & NSSF (Application No. 5 of 2017)
  • EGIS Road Operations SA v PPDA and Uganda National Roads Authority (Application No. 11 of 2020)
  • Kasokoso Services Ltd v Jinja School of Nursing (Application No. 13 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

JV KADAC GLOBALTEC v Uganda Prisons Service (Application No 4 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 4 (14 February 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.