Wakilii

Kansiime v Hoima District Local Government (Application No 8 of 2022)

Tribunal · [2022] UGPPDPAAT 8 · 2022 Application Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to challenge tender award; applicant sought to withdraw after administrative review decision
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 respondent's Accounting Officer acted illegally by issuing a new decision while a suspension order was in force and after being functus officio. The Contracts Committee cannot 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 filed an application on 11 March 2022 challenging the respondent's award of a tender for Runga landing site 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 administrative review application and recommended that the Contracts Committee review its earlier decision and award the contract to him, pending withdrawal of a High Court case in Masindi. The Chief Administrative Officer's letter dated 14 March 2022 confirmed this recommendation. Both the applicant and the Chief Administrative Officer confirmed they stood by the new decision and the prayer to withdraw.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal should approve the applicant's withdrawal of the application.
  2. Whether the respondent's Chief Administrative Officer acted lawfully in issuing a new decision while a suspension order was in force.
  3. Whether the Chief Administrative Officer was functus officio after making an earlier administrative review decision.

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 — Suspension Orders — Effect on Procuring Entity's Powers
It is illegal 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.
Administrative Law — Functus Officio — Administrative Review Decisions
An Accounting Officer who has made an administrative review decision becomes functus officio and cannot issue a subsequent decision on the same matter.
Commercial 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.
Administrative Law — Public Procurement Appeals — Withdrawal of Applications — Unlawful Compromise
The Tribunal will not approve withdrawal of a procurement appeal where the withdrawal is premised on an unlawful compromise between the parties.

Legislation cited (2)

  • PPDA Act s.89(11)(a)
  • PPDA (Tribunal) (Procedure) Regulations 2016 Regulation 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 8 of 2022) 2022 UGPPDPAAT 8 (28 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.