Wakilii

JV KadacGlobaltec v Uganda Prison Service (Application No 4 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 2 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of procurement evaluation decision to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out for being time-barred and for lack of locus standi

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 two independent grounds. First, the Accounting Officer issued his decision outside the statutory ten-day period, rendering it null and void; the Applicant was then required to apply to the Tribunal within ten days of the expiry of that period but filed thirteen days late, time-barring the application. Second, the applicant to the Accounting Officer was Kadac International Ltd, not the actual bidder JV Kadac-Globaltec, rendering that complaint incompetent and depriving the subsequent Tribunal application of any valid foundation.

Outcome

Application struck out for being time-barred and for lack of locus standi

Facts

The Uganda Prisons Service issued a call for restricted bids in August 2021 for design, construction, supply, delivery, installation, and commissioning of a grain processing and storage plant at three prison farms. Four bidders submitted bids in September 2021, including JV Kadac-Globaltec. During evaluation, the evaluation committee noted that the Applicant's Tax Clearance Certificate had expired on 30 June 2021 and sought clarification. The Applicant resubmitted the same expired certificate. In December 2021, the Respondent displayed two other bidders as best evaluated bidders and disqualified the Applicant on three grounds: expired tax clearance certificate, proposing to supply primary equipment from different manufacturers, and failure to demonstrate access to key equipment. On 17 December 2021, Kadac International Ltd (not the joint venture) applied to the Accounting Officer for administrative review. The Accounting Officer purportedly issued a decision on 4 January 2022 (received 5 January 2022), rejecting the complaint. On 19 January 2022, JV Kadac-Globaltec applied to the Tribunal for administrative review.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to the Tribunal was filed within time
  2. Whether the Applicant had locus standi to file the application before the Tribunal
  3. Whether there is a competent application before the Tribunal

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Statutory Time Limits — Mandatory Nature
Time limits prescribed in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and not directory. Failure to comply with statutory time limits renders proceedings fatal and the Tribunal has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period laid down by statute.
Public Procurement — Accounting Officer Decision — Time Limit for Issuance
Under section 89(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act as amended, where an Accounting Officer issues a decision outside the statutory ten-day period from receipt of a complaint, that decision is a blatant breach of the law and is null and void.
Public Procurement — Appeals Tribunal — Time for Application After Accounting Officer Fails to Decide
Where an Accounting Officer does not 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 his decision. An application filed after expiry of that period is time-barred.
Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Joint Venture Representation
Where a bid is submitted under a joint venture with an authorised representative nominated to conduct all business on behalf of the joint venture, an application for administrative review to the Accounting Officer or to the Tribunal must be made by or on behalf of the joint venture by the authorised representative. A complaint filed by an individual member of the joint venture not authorised to represent it is incompetent and confers no locus standi for a subsequent appeal.
Locus Standi — Applicant Not a Party to Prior Proceedings
For an application for administrative review to the Tribunal to be competent under section 89(8) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the applicant must be the same bidder who applied to the Accounting Officer for administrative review. Where the complaint to the Accounting Officer was filed by an entity different from the applicant to the Tribunal, the application to the Tribunal is incompetent for lack of locus standi.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • EliteChemicals 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 No. 2017 of 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 KadacGlobaltec v Uganda Prison Service (Application No 4 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 2 (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.