Wakilii

Kafophan and SIAAP Consortium v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries and Another (Application No 31 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 30 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of procurement decision filed directly to the Tribunal under sections 89(9) and 91(1)(c) of the PPDA Act 2003
Decision
Application struck out for lack of locus standi and filing out of time

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 lack of locus standi and filing out of time. The applicant failed to prove a reasonable belief of partiality by the Accounting Officer as required under section 89(9) of the PPDA Act to justify direct access to the Tribunal. The application was also filed three days beyond the statutory ten-day time limit, extinguishing the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Outcome

Application struck out for lack of locus standi and filing out of time

Facts

On 18 May 2021, the Ministry of Agriculture initiated procurement for consultancy services for HIV/AIDS awareness under the National Oil Palm Project. The applicant consortium and Youth Alive Uganda submitted bids. On 6 September 2022, a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder (NOBEB) declared Youth Alive Uganda the best bidder with 93.5% combined score and the applicant second with 91%. On 20 September 2022, a corrected NOBEB was issued showing Youth Alive Uganda with 94.4% and the applicant with 93.7%. The applicant filed for review directly to the Tribunal on 20 September 2022, alleging the procuring entity avoided site visits, failed to conduct financial evaluation, and fraudulently awarded the bid. The applicant claimed it could not obtain impartial handling from the Accounting Officer.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a competent application before the Tribunal?
  2. Whether the applicant had locus standi to file the application directly with the Tribunal under section 89(9) of the PPDA Act?
  3. Whether the application was filed within the statutory time limit?
  4. Whether the 1st Respondent illegally and fraudulently flouted the bidding process leading to an award of the bid to the 2nd Respondent?

Orders

  • Application struck out.
  • Suspension order dated September 20, 2022 vacated.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Direct Access to Tribunal — Proof of Partiality
An applicant seeking direct access to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal under section 89(9) of the PPDA Act must discharge the evidential burden of proving a sincere and reasonable belief that the Accounting Officer has a conflict of interest or cannot handle the complaint impartially. Mere vague suspicion or whimsical allegations without evidence cannot constitute proof of partiality.
Public Procurement — Locus Standi — Matters Not Constituting Partiality
Ordinary and normal evaluation processes detailed in the procurement methodology, such as conducting combined technical and financial evaluations and issuing corrected notices to rectify clerical errors, cannot reasonably form the basis of a belief of partiality by the Accounting Officer.
Public Procurement Appeals — Time Limits — Mandatory Compliance
Time limits set in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory, couched in substantive law, and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal has no power to enlarge or extend time. Once a party fails to move within the statutory time limit, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished.
Public Procurement Appeals — Computation of Time — Date of Awareness
The ten-day period for filing an application directly to the Tribunal under section 91(2)(c) of the PPDA Act commences from the date when the applicant became aware of the alleged omission or breach by the procuring entity. A subsequent corrected notice issued after the application has been filed cannot extend the time limit or cure a late filing.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (6)

  • Njau and Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • SMS Construction Ltd, Farrin YYISVT Ltd & STI Joint Venture v Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (Application No. 07 of 2022)
  • Abasamia Hwolarane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 12 of 2021)
  • Abasamia Hwolarane Association Ltd v Jinja City Council (Application No. 18 of 2021)
  • Mugabi David v Sembabule District Local Government (Application No. 24 of 2022)
  • Mugerwa Fred v Sembabule District Local Government (Application No. 23 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kafophan and SIAAP Consortium v Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries and Another (Application No 31 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 30 (11 October 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.