Wakilii

Kakooba Matooke Traders Cooperative Limited v Mbarara City Council and Another [2025] UGPPDPAAT 47

Tribunal · 2025 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 as time-barred and incompetent; suspension order vacated

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 time-barred and incompetent. The Applicant's complaint regarding the omission of a reservation scheme for special interest groups should have been raised within ten working days of obtaining the bidding document on 23 June 2025, but was only raised on 19 August 2025, 53 days after bid submission. Having participated in the procurement under the terms of the bidding document, the Applicant was estopped from later challenging those terms. The Tribunal held that litigation and administrative review cannot be conducted in a fragmented manner, and the mandatory timelines under the PPDA Act cannot be extended.

Outcome

Application struck out as time-barred and incompetent; suspension order vacated

Facts

Mbarara City Council initiated a procurement for revenue collection from Nyamityobora Matooke Daily Market under Procurement Reference No. MBAR 609/SCRV/2025/2026/00001 (Lot 19) on 18 June 2025. Two bidders submitted proposals: the Applicant (Kakooba Matooke Traders Co-operative Ltd) and Kacyber Security Technologies Ltd. The Applicant obtained the bidding document on 23 June 2025 and submitted its bid on 27 June 2025. On 10 September 2025, Mbarara City issued a best evaluated bidder notice awarding the contract to Kacyber Security Technologies Ltd at UGX 4,010,000 per week. The Applicant, which had been the incumbent contractor since April 2024, was declared unsuccessful for quoting a lower price of UGX 3,539,000 per week. The Applicant first complained on 19 August 2025 that the bidding document failed to include a reservation scheme for sitting vendors as required by Government policy. On 18 September 2025, after the award notice, the Applicant lodged a formal complaint with the Accounting Officer, which was dismissed on 25 September 2025. The Applicant then filed this application before the Tribunal on 1 October 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant Application was filed outside prescribed timelines and was therefore incompetent?
  2. Whether the Respondent erred when it awarded the contract in the impugned procurement to the 2nd Respondent in breach of the said Government Policy Decision on the Development and Management of Markets in the City, Municipalities and Towns?
  3. Whether there are available remedies to the Parties?

Orders

  • The Application is struck out.
  • The Tribunal's suspension order dated October 2, 2025, is vacated.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Public Procurement — Limitation Periods — Complaints Against Bidding Documents
A bidder who becomes aware of alleged irregularities in the bidding document upon obtaining it must lodge a complaint with the Accounting Officer within ten working days from that date under section 106(3)(b) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. A complaint raised 53 days after obtaining the bidding document is time-barred.
Public Procurement — Approbation and Reprobation — Estoppel
A bidder who voluntarily participates in a procurement process and submits a bid under the terms of the solicitation document is estopped from later challenging those same terms. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation precludes a party from simultaneously accepting and rejecting an instrument.
Public Procurement — Administrative Review — What Constitutes a Complaint
A bidder's communication to the Accounting Officer regarding the contents of bidding documents or the conduct of the evaluation process, outside the prescribed instances for clarification, constitutes a formal complaint under regulation 4(3) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets (Administrative Review) Regulations, 2023, where it sets out substantive and factual grounds of grievance, identifies alleged breaches, details the facts, and specifies corrective measures sought.
Public Procurement — Duty to Act Promptly — Failure of Accounting Officer to Respond
Where an Accounting Officer fails to respond to a complaint within the statutory ten-day period under section 106(7) of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, the bidder must act promptly and file an application with the Tribunal within the prescribed ten-day period under section 115(2)(b). Bidders should not wait indefinitely for a decision once statutory timelines have expired.
Public Procurement — Piecemeal Litigation — Res Judicata Principles
Litigation and administrative review cannot be conducted in a fragmented or piecemeal manner. Where a bidder has raised an issue in an earlier complaint and failed to seek recourse before the Tribunal when the Accounting Officer did not respond, the bidder is precluded from raising new complaints based on the same grounds in a subsequent application.
Public Procurement — Mandatory Timelines — Jurisdiction of Tribunal
The timelines set under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act are mandatory and cannot be extended or varied. Failure to act within the prescribed period deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (10)

  • VCON Construction (U) Ltd v Uganda Development Bank (Registry Application No. 22 of 2021)
  • Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473
  • Goldstar Insurance Company Limited v Bank of Uganda (Registry Application No. 22 of 2025)
  • Mbarara City United Bikadde Market Vendors Association Ltd v Mbarara City Council (2023)
  • Arua Kubala Park Operators and Market Vendors SACCO v PPDA (2015)
  • PPDA v Pawor Park Operators and Market Vendors SACCO (2016)
  • CSM Technologies Private Ltd and Sybl Ltd JV v National Information Technology Authority - Uganda (Registry Application No. 11 of 2025)
  • Technology Associates Limited in Consortium with Comviva Technology Limited v Post Bank Uganda Limited (Registry Application No. 6 of 2022)
  • Eclipse Edisoil JVC Ltd v Napak District Local Government (High Court Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2024)
  • Sybl Ltd v National Information Technology Authority Uganda (Registry Application No. 33 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kakooba Matooke Traders Cooperative Limited v Mbarara City Council and Another 2025 UGPPDPAAT 47 (20 October 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.