Wakilii

K-Solutions Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 122 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 60 · 2025 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit challenging procurement decision, dismissed on preliminary objection
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objection without determination on the merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 dismissed a procurement challenge brought as a tort claim, holding that the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2021 establishes a mandatory statutory review mechanism through the PPDA Tribunal before appeal to the High Court on questions of law only. A plaintiff seeking to challenge a procurement decision must exhaust the statutory remedies or seek judicial review; circumventing these procedures by framing the dispute as a tort claim constitutes an abuse of process and renders the plaint incompetent.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objection without determination on the merits

Facts

K-Solutions Limited participated in a tender process conducted by the Ministry of Water and Environment for hydro-metric equipment under Lots 1A and 1B. The plaintiff alleged it was not notified of the best evaluated bidder notice and only learned the contract had been awarded when it checked with the procurement department, by which time the statutory review period had expired. The plaintiff claimed the ministry selected another bidder despite the plaintiff being the lowest bidder, and that the ministry's actions were fraudulent and caused the plaintiff loss of bid preparation costs and expected income. The defendant contended that the best evaluated bidder notice was properly displayed, that the plaintiff failed to qualify on technical evaluation under Lot 1B and quoted a higher price under Lot 1A, and that the plaintiff failed to pursue available statutory remedies under the PPDA Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is properly before court.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Orders

  • Plaint dismissed as incompetent and wrongly before court.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies — Jurisdiction of High Court
Where the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2021 establishes a statutory review mechanism requiring aggrieved bidders to first apply to the PPDA Tribunal, the High Court's jurisdiction is appellate only and may be invoked solely on questions of law after exhaustion of the tribunal process.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Circumventing Statutory Procedures
It is contrary to public policy and constitutes an abuse of court process for a litigant to frame a procurement dispute as a tort claim in order to evade mandatory statutory review procedures established by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2021.
Judicial Review — Alternative Remedy — Public Procurement Disputes
Where a litigant seeks to challenge the legality or propriety of a procurement process, the appropriate remedy is judicial review under the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, not an ordinary civil suit framed in tort.
Administrative Law — Inherent Jurisdiction — Limits on Exercise
The court's inherent jurisdiction to disregard specific statutory procedures may be exercised only where no remedy is provided by law or where the statutory remedy is not readily accessible to the aggrieved party; it cannot be invoked to aid a litigant who chooses to ignore available statutory remedies.
Statutory Interpretation — Legislative Intent — Mandatory Procedures
Courts cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation against the will expressed in an enactment itself, nor place unnatural interpretation on the language used by the legislature to impute an intention not inferable from the statutory language.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Smart Protus Magara and 138 Others v Financial Intelligence Authority (HCMA No. 215 of 2018)
  • National Union of Clerical, Commercial & Technical Employees v NIC (SCCA No. 17 of 1993)
  • Byaruhanga John Patrick v Commissioner Land Registration (HCMA No. 235 of 2024)
  • O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

K-Solutions Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 122 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 60 (27 May 2025)
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.