Wakilii

Kansiime v Hoima District Local Government (Application No 11 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 11 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for administrative review of tender award decision before the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal
Decision
Application struck out after Tribunal refused to approve withdrawal based on unlawful compromise

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 denied approval for withdrawal of a procurement appeal where the withdrawal was premised on an unlawful compromise. The Chief Administrative Officer acted unlawfully by issuing a new decision while an appeal was pending and a suspension order subsisted, contrary to PPDA Act s.89(11)(a). The officer was also functus officio having already made an administrative review decision. The Contracts Committee could not make a new award without re-evaluation. Application struck out with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application struck out after Tribunal refused to approve withdrawal based on unlawful compromise

Facts

The Applicant challenged the Respondent's award of a tender for Runga market to Tibalyerinda John. The Tribunal issued a suspension order on 14 March 2022. On 25 March 2022, the Applicant sought to withdraw the application, stating that another administrative review committee had upheld his complaint and recommended the Contracts Committee award the contract to him instead. The Chief Administrative Officer issued a communication dated 14 March 2022 stating that the original awardee's bid lacked bid security and recommending the contract be awarded to the Applicant pending withdrawal of a related High Court case. Both the Applicant and the Chief Administrative Officer confirmed they stood by this new decision and the withdrawal request.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal should approve the applicant's withdrawal of the application.
  2. Whether the Chief Administrative Officer acted lawfully in issuing a new decision while an appeal was pending before the Tribunal and a suspension order was in force.
  3. Whether the Chief Administrative Officer was functus officio having already made an administrative review decision.
  4. Whether the Contracts Committee could make a new award decision without re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee.

Orders

  • Approval to withdraw the application is denied.
  • The application is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Functus Officio — Authority to Issue New Decision After Initial Administrative Review
An administrative officer who has made an administrative review decision is functus officio and lacks authority to issue a subsequent decision on the same matter.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Pending Appeals — Prohibition on New Decisions During Suspension
It is unlawful for an accounting officer to issue a new procurement decision when there is a pending appeal to the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Appeals Tribunal and a subsisting suspension order, as provided under PPDA Act s.89(11)(a) as amended.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement — Award Decisions — Requirement for Re-evaluation
A Contracts Committee cannot make a new award decision in the absence of a re-evaluation by the Evaluation Committee.
Civil Procedure — Withdrawal of Applications — Tribunal Approval Required — Unlawful Compromise
Under PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016 reg.16(3), withdrawal of an application requires Tribunal approval, and the Tribunal may refuse approval where the withdrawal is premised on an unlawful compromise.

Legislation cited (2)

  • PPDA Act s.89(11)(a)
  • PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016 reg.16(3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kansiime v Hoima District Local Government (Application No 11 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 11 (29 March 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.